PCGG vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - PCGG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. PCGG is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, PCGG returned -5.83% vs 91.89% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. PCGG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

PCGG vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCGG achieves a -6.93% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return.

PCGG

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 6M: -6.74%
• 1Y: -5.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: -10.29%
• YTD: 90.47%
• 6M: 86.00%
• 1Y: 91.89%
• 3Y*: 27.93%
• 5Y*: 24.16%
• 10Y*: 13.60%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PCGG vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-6.93%	1.62%	12.40%	4.01%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	90.47%	-5.44%	9.67%	-6.44%

Correlation

The correlation between PCGG and BNO is -0.29, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2023	-0.12

The correlation between PCGG and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.29 (1 year) to -0.12 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PCGG vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 6
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 6

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 65
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 60
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 55

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

PCGG vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	PCGG	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.38	2.23	-2.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.43	2.73	-3.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.38	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.26	5.17	-5.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.64	9.76	-10.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PCGG vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.38, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCGG and BNO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PCGG	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.38	2.23	-2.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.69	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.37	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.14	+0.08

Drawdowns

PCGG vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCGG drawdown since its inception was -22.66%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCGG and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCGG	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-87.06%	+64.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.66%	-17.87%	-4.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.75%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.70%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.59%	-10.29%	-1.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.95%	-40.17%	+35.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.13%	9.45%	-0.32%

Volatility

PCGG vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) is 3.80%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. This indicates that PCGG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCGG	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.80%	14.22%	-10.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.06%	36.10%	-24.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.27%	41.46%	-26.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.64%	35.38%	-18.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.64%	36.68%	-20.04%

PCGG vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCGG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCGG vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither PCGG nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCGG and BNO in my portfolio?

PCGG and BNO have a correlation of -0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCGG or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (14.22%) compared to PCGG (3.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCGG dropped -22.66% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, PCGG or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 91.89% vs -5.83% for PCGG. On fees, PCGG is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 3.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCGG or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 91.89% return vs -5.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCGG or BNO?

PCGG is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PCGG or BNO?

PCGG and BNO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PCGG and BNO?

PCGG is categorized as Global Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Polen and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCGG and 0.90% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs -0.38), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.