AMJB vs. BCCC

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

AMJB (Alerian MLP Index ETN) and BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMJB is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while BCCC is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Global X. AMJB is passively managed, while BCCC is actively managed. Over the past year, AMJB returned 19.62% vs -33.97% for BCCC. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. AMJB charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for BCCC.

Performance

AMJB vs. BCCC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alerian MLP Index ETN (AMJB) and Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMJB achieves a 20.66% return, which is significantly higher than BCCC's -21.55% return.

AMJB

• 1D: 1.69%
• 1M: 6.86%
• 6M: 14.64%
• YTD: 20.66%
• 1Y: 19.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCCC

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 0.17%
• 6M: -26.39%
• YTD: -21.55%
• 1Y: -33.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AMJB vs. BCCC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AMJB Alerian MLP Index ETN	20.66%	-1.71%
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	-21.55%	-7.02%

Correlation

The correlation between AMJB and BCCC is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	-0.06

Return for Risk

AMJB vs. BCCC — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMJB

AMJB Risk / Return Rank: 40
AMJB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
AMJB Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
AMJB Omega Ratio Rank: 37
AMJB Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
AMJB Martin Ratio Rank: 38

BCCC

BCCC Risk / Return Rank: 2
BCCC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BCCC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BCCC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BCCC Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

AMJB vs. BCCC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alerian MLP Index ETN (AMJB) and Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC). 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.

	AMJB	BCCC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	-0.96	+2.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.78	-1.28	+3.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	0.84	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	-0.82	+2.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.73	-1.37	+6.10

AMJB vs. BCCC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMJB Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is higher than the BCCC Sharpe Ratio of -0.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMJB and BCCC, 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

AMJB vs. BCCC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMJB drawdown since its inception was -17.70%, smaller than the maximum BCCC drawdown of -41.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMJB and BCCC.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMJB	BCCC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.70%	-41.79%	+24.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.80%	-41.79%	+29.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.68%	-37.30%	+33.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.08%	-19.09%	+14.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.17%	24.92%	-20.75%

Volatility

AMJB vs. BCCC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Alerian MLP Index ETN (AMJB) is 7.49%, while Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) has a volatility of 8.15%. This indicates that AMJB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BCCC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMJB	BCCC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.49%	8.15%	-0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.24%	29.32%	-16.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.56%	35.64%	-19.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.43%	34.74%	-16.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.43%	34.74%	-16.31%

AMJB vs. BCCC - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMJB has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BCCC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMJB vs. BCCC - Dividend Comparison

AMJB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 60.41%.

Position	TTM	2025
AMJB Alerian MLP Index ETN	0.00%	0.00%
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	60.41%	29.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMJB and BCCC in my portfolio?

AMJB and BCCC have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMJB or BCCC?

BCCC has higher volatility (8.15%) compared to AMJB (7.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMJB dropped -17.70% vs BCCC's -41.79%.

Which ETF is better, AMJB or BCCC?

On 1-year performance, AMJB leads with 19.62% vs -33.97% for BCCC. On fees, BCCC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, AMJB has been the lower-risk option at 7.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMJB or BCCC?

Over the 1-year period, AMJB has performed better with a 19.62% return vs -33.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMJB or BCCC?

BCCC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for AMJB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMJB or BCCC?

BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 60.41%, compared with 0.00% for AMJB.

What is the main difference between AMJB and BCCC?

AMJB is categorized as Energy Equities, while BCCC is Cryptocurrency. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for AMJB and 0.75% for BCCC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AMJB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.20 vs -0.96), 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.