QCML vs. BNO

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - QCML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QCML returned 5.77% vs 36.19% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. QCML charges 1.50%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for BNO.

Performance

QCML vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) 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, QCML achieves a -3.62% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 48.83% return.

QCML

• 1D: -2.33%
• 1M: -23.29%
• 6M: -10.47%
• YTD: -3.62%
• 1Y: 5.77%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -11.86%
• 6M: 43.76%
• YTD: 48.83%
• 1Y: 36.19%
• 3Y*: 16.16%
• 5Y*: 16.70%
• 10Y*: 11.29%

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

QCML vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	-3.62%	-16.71%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	48.83%	-7.99%

Correlation

The correlation between QCML and BNO is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	-0.01

Return for Risk

QCML vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 14
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 20
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 10

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 31
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 33
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

QCML vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) 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.

	QCML	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.04	0.95	-0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.84	1.50	-0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.19	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.07	1.15	-1.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.13	3.44	-3.31

QCML vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCML Sharpe Ratio is 0.04, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCML 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

QCML vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCML drawdown since its inception was -59.13%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCML and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCML	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.13%	-87.06%	+27.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-58.72%	-34.46%	-24.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.46%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.46%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-47.72%	-29.90%	-17.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.60%	-40.07%	+10.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.51%	11.55%	+18.96%

Volatility

QCML vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) has a higher volatility of 41.35% compared to United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) at 13.12%. This indicates that QCML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BNO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCML	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	41.35%	13.12%	+28.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	91.73%	38.38%	+53.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	103.59%	41.83%	+61.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	100.33%	35.87%	+64.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	100.33%	36.71%	+63.62%

QCML vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCML has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BNO's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCML vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCML nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCML and BNO in my portfolio?

QCML and BNO have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCML or BNO?

QCML has higher volatility (41.35%) compared to BNO (13.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCML dropped -59.13% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, QCML or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 36.19% vs 5.77% for QCML. On fees, BNO is cheaper at 1.00% per year. On volatility, BNO has been the lower-risk option at 13.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCML or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 36.19% return vs 5.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCML or BNO?

BNO is cheaper with a 1.00% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for QCML.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCML and BNO?

QCML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. QCML tracks Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), while BNO tracks Crude Oil Brent ICE Near Term Futures. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and USCF Investments. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for QCML and 1.00% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.04), 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.