PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QULL vs. BNO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QULL vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QULL achieves a 14.91% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 85.31% return.


QULL

1D
0.09%
1M
7.35%
YTD
14.91%
6M
14.62%
1Y
37.35%
3Y*
32.72%
5Y*
16.17%
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)

QULL vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
QULL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN
14.91%17.61%38.03%57.07%-42.00%51.36%
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP
85.31%-5.44%9.67%-3.43%35.25%41.19%

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and BNO is -0.33, 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

-0.33

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.09

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021

0.05

The correlation between QULL and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.33 (1 year) to 0.05 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

QULL vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL
QULL Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
Martin Ratio Rank

BNO
BNO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

QULL vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) 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.


QULLBNODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.49

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.36

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.04

4.99

-2.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.01

9.39

-0.37

QULL vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QULL Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QULL 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QULLBNODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.54

2.15

-0.61

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

0.67

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.36

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.56

0.14

+0.42

Drawdowns

QULL vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QULL drawdown since its inception was -51.83%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QULL and BNO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QULLBNODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.83%

-87.06%

+35.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.43%

-17.87%

-0.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-36.82%

-23.75%

-13.07%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-51.83%

-33.70%

-18.13%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-75.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.30%

-12.72%

+12.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.05%

-40.16%

+26.11%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.15%

9.48%

-5.33%

Volatility

QULL vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) is 4.58%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.12%. This indicates that QULL 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QULLBNODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.58%

14.12%

-9.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.76%

36.21%

-17.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.43%

41.56%

-17.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.61%

35.40%

+0.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

35.13%

36.69%

-1.56%

QULL vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QULL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.


Dividends

QULL vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither QULL nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


QULL and BNO have a correlation of -0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BNO has higher volatility (14.12%) compared to QULL (4.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs BNO's -87.06%.

On 5-year performance, BNO leads with 23.48% vs 16.17% for QULL. On fees, BNO is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, QULL has been the lower-risk option at 4.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BNO has performed better with a 23.48% return vs 16.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BNO is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QULL.

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

QULL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QULL and 0.90% for BNO.

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.54), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QULL and BNO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer