QCJA vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

QCJA (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - QCJA is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. QCJA is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJA returned 12.98% vs 39.47% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. QCJA charges 0.90%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.

Performance

QCJA vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) 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, QCJA achieves a 4.92% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 43.86% return.

QCJA

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -0.40%
• YTD: 4.92%
• 6M: 5.00%
• 1Y: 12.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: -4.23%
• 1M: -25.93%
• YTD: 43.86%
• 6M: 41.93%
• 1Y: 39.47%
• 3Y*: 17.61%
• 5Y*: 15.98%
• 10Y*: 10.77%

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

QCJA vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCJA FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January	4.92%	11.05%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	43.86%	-13.26%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJA and BNO is -0.20, 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	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2025	-0.06

The correlation between QCJA and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to -0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QCJA vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJA

QCJA Risk / Return Rank: 77
QCJA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
QCJA Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCJA Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QCJA Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
QCJA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 29
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 31
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

QCJA vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) 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.

	QCJA	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	0.97	+1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.16	1.51	+1.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.20	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	1.23	+1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	4.18	+8.35

QCJA vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJA Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is higher than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJA 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

QCJA vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJA drawdown since its inception was -10.67%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJA and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJA	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.67%	-87.06%	+76.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.98%	-32.25%	+27.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-32.25%	—
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	-1.05%	-32.25%	+31.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.17%	-40.10%	+38.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	9.47%	-8.43%

Volatility

QCJA vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - January (QCJA) is 2.05%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 11.33%. This indicates that QCJA 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

	QCJA	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.05%	11.33%	-9.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.97%	37.57%	-32.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.95%	41.20%	-35.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.43%	35.70%	-26.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.43%	36.70%	-27.27%

QCJA vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCJA has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCJA vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJA nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJA and BNO in my portfolio?

QCJA and BNO have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJA or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (11.33%) compared to QCJA (2.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJA dropped -10.67% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, QCJA or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 39.47% vs 12.98% for QCJA. On fees, QCJA is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, QCJA has been the lower-risk option at 2.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJA or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 39.47% return vs 12.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJA or BNO?

QCJA is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for BNO.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJA and BNO?

QCJA is categorized as Defined Outcome, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and USCF Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for QCJA and 1.00% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 0.97), 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.