ACSI vs. BCHP

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

ACSI (American Customer Satisfaction ETF) and BCHP (Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ACSI is passively managed, while BCHP is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ACSI returned 19.09%/yr vs 16.18%/yr for BCHP. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ACSI charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for BCHP.

Performance

ACSI vs. BCHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) and Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF (BCHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACSI achieves a 16.30% return, which is significantly higher than BCHP's 4.56% return.

ACSI

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 3.53%
• 6M: 14.55%
• YTD: 16.30%
• 1Y: 22.82%
• 3Y*: 19.09%
• 5Y*: 9.63%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.36%

BCHP

• 1D: 0.95%
• 1M: 6.41%
• 6M: 9.78%
• YTD: 4.56%
• 1Y: 4.04%
• 3Y*: 16.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.92%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACSI American Customer Satisfaction ETF	$12.57K	$22.39K	$20.11K
BCHP Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF	$1.90M	$1.29M	$1.18M

ACSI vs. BCHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ACSI American Customer Satisfaction ETF	16.30%	10.70%	22.51%	6.89%
BCHP Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF	4.56%	10.20%	20.55%	13.14%

Correlation

The correlation between ACSI and BCHP is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2023	0.78

The correlation between ACSI and BCHP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACSI vs. BCHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACSI	BCHP
Consumer Cyclical	24.2%	14.3%
Communication Services	15.4%	16.8%
Technology	12.5%	31.8%
Consumer Defensive	12.4%	-
Financial Services	9.6%	23.8%
Healthcare	8.5%	3.9%
Industrials	7.3%	9.5%
Utilities	3.9%	-
Energy	3.4%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Real Estate	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

ACSI vs. BCHP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ACSI

ACSI Risk / Return Rank: 75
ACSI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ACSI Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
ACSI Omega Ratio Rank: 72
ACSI Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
ACSI Martin Ratio Rank: 78

BCHP

BCHP Risk / Return Rank: 14
BCHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
BCHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
BCHP Omega Ratio Rank: 14
BCHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
BCHP Martin Ratio Rank: 15

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ACSI vs. BCHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) and Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF (BCHP). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ACSI	BCHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	0.23	+1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	0.44	+2.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.05	+0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.95	0.22	+2.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.32	0.67	+10.65

ACSI vs. BCHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACSI Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is higher than the BCHP Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACSI and BCHP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ACSI vs. BCHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACSI drawdown since its inception was -34.49%, which is greater than BCHP's maximum drawdown of -18.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACSI and BCHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACSI	BCHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.49%	-18.56%	-15.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.76%	-18.12%	+10.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.27%	-18.56%	+3.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.31%	-3.08%	-2.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.02%	6.01%	-3.99%

Volatility

ACSI vs. BCHP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) is 3.71%, while Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF (BCHP) has a volatility of 6.32%. This indicates that ACSI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BCHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACSI	BCHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.71%	6.32%	-2.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.48%	14.55%	-5.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.84%	17.38%	-5.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.67%	17.11%	-0.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.35%	17.11%	+0.24%

ACSI vs. BCHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACSI has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than BCHP's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACSI vs. BCHP - Dividend Comparison

ACSI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, while BCHP has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
ACSI American Customer Satisfaction ETF	0.78%	0.91%	0.69%	1.01%	0.81%	0.31%	0.82%	1.64%	1.59%	1.20%	0.18%
BCHP Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.02%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACSI and BCHP in my portfolio?

ACSI and BCHP have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACSI or BCHP?

BCHP has higher volatility (6.32%) compared to ACSI (3.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACSI dropped -34.49% vs BCHP's -18.56%.

Which ETF is better, ACSI or BCHP?

On 3-year performance, ACSI leads with 19.09% vs 16.18% for BCHP. On fees, BCHP is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, ACSI has been the lower-risk option at 3.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACSI or BCHP?

Over the 3-year period, ACSI has performed better with a 19.09% return vs 16.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACSI or BCHP?

BCHP is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for ACSI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACSI or BCHP?

ACSI has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.00% for BCHP.

What is the main difference between ACSI and BCHP?

They also come from different issuers: Exponential ETFs and Principal. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for ACSI and 0.58% for BCHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACSI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 0.23), 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.