QCJL vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - QCJL is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by First Trust, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. QCJL is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, QCJL returned 14.55% vs 88.71% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.90% expense ratio.

Performance

QCJL vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) 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, QCJL achieves a 5.19% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 85.31% return.

QCJL

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.18%
• YTD: 5.19%
• 6M: 5.63%
• 1Y: 14.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: -2.71%
• 1M: -9.80%
• YTD: 85.31%
• 6M: 79.66%
• 1Y: 88.71%
• 3Y*: 26.74%
• 5Y*: 23.48%
• 10Y*: 13.13%

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

QCJL vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.19%	13.10%	4.12%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	85.31%	-5.44%	-4.22%

Correlation

The correlation between QCJL and BNO is -0.28, 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	-0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2024	-0.07

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between QCJL and BNO has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.07 to -0.28, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

Return for Risk

QCJL vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 81
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 84
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 65
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 61
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.

QCJL vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	QCJL	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	2.15	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	2.65	+0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.36	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.65	4.99	-1.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.55	9.39	+9.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCJL vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is comparable to the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCJL 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

	QCJL	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.49	2.15	+0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.67	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.36	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.29	0.14	+1.15

Drawdowns

QCJL vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCJL drawdown since its inception was -11.18%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCJL and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCJL	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-87.06%	+75.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.00%	-17.87%	+13.87%
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	-0.02%	-12.72%	+12.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.07%	-40.16%	+39.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.79%	9.48%	-8.69%

Volatility

QCJL vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) is 0.39%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.12%. This indicates that QCJL 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

	QCJL	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.39%	14.12%	-13.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.31%	36.21%	-31.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.88%	41.56%	-35.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.47%	35.40%	-25.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.47%	36.69%	-27.22%

QCJL vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QCJL and BNO have an expense ratio of 0.90%.

Dividends

QCJL vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCJL nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCJL and BNO in my portfolio?

QCJL and BNO have a correlation of -0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCJL or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (14.12%) compared to QCJL (0.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCJL dropped -11.18% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, QCJL or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 88.71% vs 14.55% for QCJL. Both ETFs have the same 0.90% expense ratio. On volatility, QCJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCJL or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 88.71% return vs 14.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCJL or BNO?

QCJL and BNO have the same expense ratio: 0.90% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCJL and BNO?

QCJL is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Concierge Technologies.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 2.15), 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.