PSCQ vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

PSCQ (Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (October) ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - PSCQ is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Pacer, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. PSCQ is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PSCQ returned 12.25%/yr vs 19.86%/yr for BNO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PSCQ charges 0.60%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.

Performance

PSCQ vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (October) ETF (PSCQ) 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, PSCQ achieves a 5.48% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 52.26% return.

PSCQ

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.57%
• YTD: 5.48%
• 6M: 5.47%
• 1Y: 15.25%
• 3Y*: 12.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: -1.73%
• 1M: -21.60%
• YTD: 52.26%
• 6M: 50.77%
• 1Y: 30.19%
• 3Y*: 19.86%
• 5Y*: 17.50%
• 10Y*: 11.40%

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

PSCQ vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PSCQ Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (October) ETF	5.48%	11.50%	9.72%	19.79%	-4.44%	2.38%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	52.26%	-5.44%	9.67%	-3.43%	35.25%	1.31%

Correlation

The correlation between PSCQ and BNO is -0.26, 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	-0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.03

The correlation between PSCQ and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.26 (1 year) to 0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PSCQ vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

PSCQ

PSCQ Risk / Return Rank: 82
PSCQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
PSCQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
PSCQ Omega Ratio Rank: 88
PSCQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
PSCQ Martin Ratio Rank: 84

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 23
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 23
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

PSCQ vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (October) ETF (PSCQ) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	PSCQ	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	0.73	+1.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.82	1.23	+2.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.16	+0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.34	1.07	+2.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.65	3.33	+13.32

PSCQ vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PSCQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is higher than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 0.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PSCQ 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.

Drawdowns

PSCQ vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PSCQ drawdown since its inception was -9.92%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSCQ and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	PSCQ	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.92%	-87.06%	+77.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.58%	-28.29%	+23.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.92%	-28.29%	+18.37%
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	-0.19%	-28.29%	+28.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.57%	-40.10%	+38.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	10.51%	-9.59%

Volatility

PSCQ vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (October) ETF (PSCQ) is 1.65%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 10.98%. This indicates that PSCQ 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

	PSCQ	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.65%	10.98%	-9.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.65%	37.28%	-32.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.93%	41.73%	-35.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.56%	35.65%	-28.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.56%	36.71%	-29.15%

PSCQ vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

PSCQ has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

PSCQ vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither PSCQ nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PSCQ and BNO in my portfolio?

PSCQ and BNO have a correlation of -0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PSCQ or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (10.98%) compared to PSCQ (1.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSCQ dropped -9.92% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, PSCQ or BNO?

On 3-year performance, BNO leads with 19.86% vs 12.25% for PSCQ. On fees, PSCQ is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PSCQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PSCQ or BNO?

Over the 3-year period, BNO has performed better with a 19.86% return vs 12.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PSCQ or BNO?

PSCQ is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.

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

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

What is the main difference between PSCQ and BNO?

PSCQ is categorized as Options Trading, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and USCF Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PSCQ and 1.00% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSCQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 0.73), 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.