PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RTH vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RTH (VanEck Vectors Retail ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - RTH is a Consumer Discretionary Equities fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Retail 25 Index, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RTH returned 13.87%/yr vs 13.60%/yr for BNO. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RTH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

RTH vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (RTH) 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, RTH achieves a 1.87% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RTH having a 13.87% annualized return and BNO not far behind at 13.60%.

RTH

1D
0.35%
1M
-4.91%
YTD
1.87%
6M
1.10%
1Y
7.77%
3Y*
16.09%
5Y*
9.36%
10Y*
13.87%

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)

RTH vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RTH
VanEck Vectors Retail ETF		1.87%12.36%20.02%20.07%-17.67%24.94%31.62%29.06%3.87%22.45%
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		90.47%-5.44%9.67%-3.43%35.25%62.34%-38.23%36.01%-15.30%15.43%

Correlation

The correlation between RTH and BNO is -0.22, 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

-0.22

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

-0.07

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

0.03

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

0.12

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

0.15

The correlation between RTH and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to 0.15 (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.

VanEck Vectors Retail ETF

United States Brent Oil Fund LP

Often compared with RTH:
RTH vs. XRTRTH vs. QQQRTH vs. FSRPXRTH vs. FSTARTH vs. VOORTH vs. IEDIRTH vs. IYK
Often compared with BNO:
BNO vs. USOBNO vs. XLEBNO vs. USLBNO vs. BOILBNO vs. UNGBNO vs. UCOBNO vs. XOM

Return for Risk

RTH vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
RTH
RTH Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
RTH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RTH Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
RTH Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
RTH Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
RTH Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
BNO
BNO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
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.

RTH vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (RTH) 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.

RTHBNODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.65
2.23

-1.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.04
2.73

-1.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.38

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.00

5.17

-4.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.46

9.76

-6.30

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

RTH vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RTH Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RTH 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

RTHBNODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.65

2.23

-1.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.56

0.69

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.79

0.37

+0.42

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.50

0.14

+0.36

Drawdowns

RTH vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RTH drawdown since its inception was -42.32%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RTH and BNO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RTHBNODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.32%

-87.06%

+44.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.83%

-17.87%

+10.04%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.80%

-23.75%

+9.95%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.00%

-33.70%

+8.70%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.00%

-75.18%

+50.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.85%

-10.29%

+4.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.34%

-40.17%

+32.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.26%

9.45%

-7.19%

Volatility

RTH vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (RTH) is 3.83%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. This indicates that RTH 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

RTHBNODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.83%

14.22%

-10.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.22%

36.10%

-26.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.07%

41.46%

-29.39%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.81%

35.38%

-18.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.54%

36.68%

-19.14%

RTH vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RTH vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

RTH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, 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%
RTH
VanEck Vectors Retail ETF		0.95%0.97%0.77%1.07%1.16%0.78%0.64%0.91%1.05%1.56%1.84%2.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

RTH and BNO have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BNO has higher volatility (14.22%) compared to RTH (3.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RTH dropped -42.32% vs BNO's -87.06%.

On 10-year performance, RTH leads with 13.87% vs 13.60% for BNO. On fees, RTH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RTH has been the lower-risk option at 3.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RTH has performed better with a 13.87% return vs 13.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

RTH has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

RTH is categorized as Consumer Discretionary Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. RTH tracks MVIS US Listed Retail 25 Index, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RTH and 0.90% for BNO.

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 0.65), 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 RTH 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