TMFS vs. BNO
TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. TMFS is actively managed, while BNO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -1.68%/yr vs 24.16%/yr for BNO. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.
Performance
TMFS vs. BNO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -4.69% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 90.47% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- -1.11%
- 1M
- -3.92%
- YTD
- -4.69%
- 6M
- -6.04%
- 1Y
- -3.97%
- 3Y*
- 6.32%
- 5Y*
- -1.68%
- 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%
TMFS vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | -4.69% | -1.59% | 15.41% | 25.40% | -33.15% | -2.38% | 58.52% | 40.19% | -8.11% |
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP | 90.47% | -5.44% | 9.67% | -3.43% | 35.25% | 62.34% | -38.23% | 36.01% | -28.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and BNO is -0.23, 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 | -0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2018 | 0.15 |
The correlation between TMFS and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (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.
Return for Risk
TMFS vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
BNO
TMFS vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) 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.
| TMFS | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.43 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.98 | 1.38 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.25 | 5.17 | -5.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.70 | 9.76 | -10.46 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMFS | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.20 | 2.23 | -2.43 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.07 | 0.69 | -0.76 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.37 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.32 | 0.14 | +0.18 |
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and BNO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -87.06% | +38.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | -17.87% | +2.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | -23.75% | -3.30% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | -33.70% | -11.98% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -75.18% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.78% | -10.29% | -12.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.47% | -40.17% | +20.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.68% | 9.45% | -3.77% |
Volatility
TMFS vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) is 5.23%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.22%. This indicates that TMFS 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
| TMFS | BNO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.23% | 14.22% | -8.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.98% | 36.10% | -22.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.62% | 41.46% | -21.84% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.93% | 35.38% | -12.45% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.52% | 36.68% | -11.16% |
TMFS vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFS vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison
Neither TMFS nor BNO has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BNO United States Brent Oil Fund LP | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFS and BNO have a correlation of -0.23, 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 TMFS (5.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs BNO's -87.06%.
On 5-year performance, BNO leads with 24.16% vs -1.68% for TMFS. On fees, TMFS is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, TMFS has been the lower-risk option at 5.23%. 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 24.16% return vs -1.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
TMFS is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.
TMFS and BNO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
TMFS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.90% for BNO.
BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs -0.20), 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.
Find the right allocation for TMFS 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