PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RFG vs. BNO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RFG vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 10.42%/yr vs 13.38%/yr for BNO. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

RFG vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) 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, RFG achieves a 21.39% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 86.76% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed BNO with an annualized return of 10.42%, while BNO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.38% annualized return.

RFG

1D
0.70%
1M
6.34%
YTD
21.39%
6M
22.20%
1Y
33.68%
3Y*
20.33%
5Y*
8.66%
10Y*
10.42%

BNO

1D
0.76%
1M
-7.65%
YTD
86.76%
6M
83.45%
1Y
89.50%
3Y*
27.10%
5Y*
23.77%
10Y*
13.38%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFG vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF		21.39%8.80%17.80%16.42%-21.70%13.81%32.86%17.09%-13.98%20.46%
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		86.76%-5.44%9.67%-3.43%35.25%62.34%-38.23%36.01%-15.30%15.43%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and BNO is -0.25, 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

-0.25

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

0.03

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

0.14

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.20

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2010

0.24

The correlation between RFG and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to 0.24 (all time), 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.

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF

United States Brent Oil Fund LP

Often compared with RFG:
RFG vs. RFVRFG vs. IVOGRFG vs. SPMDRFG vs. FRTYRFG vs. FDISRFG vs. VOTRFG vs. IMCG
Often compared with BNO:
BNO vs. USOBNO vs. XLEBNO vs. USLBNO vs. BOILBNO vs. UNGBNO vs. UCOBNO vs. XOM

Return for Risk

RFG vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank
BNO
BNO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
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.

RFG vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) 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.

RFGBNODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.83

2.17

-0.35

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.60

2.68

-0.08

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.37

-0.06

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

5.39

-2.13

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.24

10.23

+3.01

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RFG vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG 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

RFGBNODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.83

2.17

-0.35

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

0.68

-0.29

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

0.37

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.14

+0.29

Drawdowns

RFG vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and BNO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RFGBNODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.93%

-87.06%

+35.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.41%

-17.87%

+7.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-23.75%

-2.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.16%

-33.70%

-1.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.92%

-75.18%

+32.26%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-12.04%

+12.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.97%

-40.18%

+31.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.56%

9.43%

-6.87%

Volatility

RFG vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is 6.52%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 15.03%. This indicates that RFG 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

RFGBNODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.52%

15.03%

-8.51%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.76%

36.08%

-21.32%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.52%

41.56%

-23.04%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.81%

35.37%

-12.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.05%

36.68%

-13.63%

RFG vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF		0.32%0.43%0.38%0.99%0.78%0.05%0.27%0.64%0.76%0.66%0.35%0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

RFG and BNO have a correlation of -0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BNO has higher volatility (15.03%) compared to RFG (6.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs BNO's -87.06%.

On 10-year performance, BNO leads with 13.38% vs 10.42% for RFG. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RFG has been the lower-risk option at 6.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, BNO has performed better with a 13.38% return vs 10.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.32%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.90% for BNO.

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.83), 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 RFG 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