AFSC vs. BCI

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 28.96% vs 38.68% for BCI. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for BCI.

Performance

AFSC vs. BCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 17.39% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 26.68% return.

AFSC

• 1D: 0.86%
• 1M: 1.65%
• YTD: 17.39%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 28.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCI

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -3.06%
• YTD: 26.68%
• 6M: 25.55%
• 1Y: 38.68%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 11.07%
• 10Y*: —

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

AFSC vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	17.39%	2.67%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	26.68%	5.61%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSC and BCI is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.01

Return for Risk

AFSC vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 48
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 40
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 71
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

AFSC vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI). 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.

	AFSC	BCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	2.30	-0.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	2.92	-0.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.41	-0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.76	5.10	-2.34
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.46	13.14	-2.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFSC vs. BCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is lower than the BCI Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSC and BCI, 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

	AFSC	BCI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	2.30	-0.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	0.48	+0.22

Drawdowns

AFSC vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.68%, smaller than the maximum BCI drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and BCI.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSC	BCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.68%	-32.69%	+11.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.29%	-7.61%	-2.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	-4.52%	+3.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.16%	-12.00%	+7.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	2.95%	-0.23%

Volatility

AFSC vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a higher volatility of 5.55% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 5.16%. This indicates that AFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BCI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFSC	BCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.55%	5.16%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	14.80%	-0.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.58%	16.92%	+1.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.60%	16.82%	+5.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.60%	15.65%	+6.95%

AFSC vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than BCI's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFSC vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison

AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than BCI's 13.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	13.01%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSC and BCI in my portfolio?

AFSC and BCI have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFSC or BCI?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.55%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.68% vs BCI's -32.69%.

Which ETF is better, AFSC or BCI?

On 1-year performance, BCI leads with 38.68% vs 28.96% for AFSC. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 5.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSC or BCI?

Over the 1-year period, BCI has performed better with a 38.68% return vs 28.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSC or BCI?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFSC or BCI?

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 0.07% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between AFSC and BCI?

AFSC is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while BCI is Commodities. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.25% for BCI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.57), 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.