RSMC vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - RSMC is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Rockefeller, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. RSMC is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past year, RSMC returned 10.02% vs 91.89% for BNO. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. RSMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

RSMC vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) 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, RSMC achieves a 10.85% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return.

RSMC

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 2.49%
• YTD: 10.85%
• 6M: 8.72%
• 1Y: 10.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNO

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: -10.29%
• YTD: 90.47%
• 6M: 86.00%
• 1Y: 91.89%
• 3Y*: 27.93%
• 5Y*: 24.16%
• 10Y*: 13.60%

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

RSMC vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	10.85%	-1.02%	0.68%
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP	90.47%	-5.44%	-3.98%

Correlation

The correlation between RSMC 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024	-0.11

The correlation between RSMC and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to -0.11 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RSMC vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 21
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 23

BNO

BNO Risk / Return Rank: 65
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 60
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.

RSMC vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) 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.

	RSMC	BNO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	2.23	-1.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.95	2.73	-1.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.38	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.96	5.17	-4.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.87	9.76	-6.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSMC vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSMC Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSMC 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

	RSMC	BNO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59	2.23	-1.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.69	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.37	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	0.14	+0.17

Drawdowns

RSMC vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSMC drawdown since its inception was -22.33%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMC and BNO.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSMC	BNO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.33%	-87.06%	+64.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.49%	-17.87%	+7.38%
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	-2.03%	-10.29%	+8.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.26%	-40.17%	+34.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	9.45%	-5.95%

Volatility

RSMC vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) is 4.81%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. This indicates that RSMC 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

	RSMC	BNO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.81%	14.22%	-9.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.36%	36.10%	-23.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.16%	41.46%	-24.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.38%	35.38%	-15.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.38%	36.68%	-16.30%

RSMC vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSMC vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

Neither RSMC nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSMC and BNO in my portfolio?

RSMC 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.

Which is riskier, RSMC or BNO?

BNO has higher volatility (14.22%) compared to RSMC (4.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMC dropped -22.33% vs BNO's -87.06%.

Which ETF is better, RSMC or BNO?

On 1-year performance, BNO leads with 91.89% vs 10.02% for RSMC. On fees, RSMC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, RSMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSMC or BNO?

Over the 1-year period, BNO has performed better with a 91.89% return vs 10.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSMC or BNO?

RSMC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

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

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

What is the main difference between RSMC and BNO?

RSMC is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Rockefeller and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RSMC and 0.90% for BNO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 0.59), 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.