AMUB vs. BDCZ
AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and BDCZ (ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while BDCZ is a Financials Equities fund tracking the BDCZ-US - MVIS US Business Development Companies Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AMUB returned 3.58%/yr vs 6.30%/yr for BDCZ. Their 0.40 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for BDCZ.
Performance
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 23.05% return, which is significantly higher than BDCZ's -6.58% return. Over the past 10 years, AMUB has underperformed BDCZ with an annualized return of 3.58%, while BDCZ has yielded a comparatively higher 6.30% annualized return.
AMUB
- 1D
- 1.06%
- 1M
- 7.16%
- 6M
- 13.97%
- YTD
- 23.05%
- 1Y
- 20.12%
- 3Y*
- 15.25%
- 5Y*
- 15.00%
- 10Y*
- 3.58%
- ALL TIME*
- 0.51%
BDCZ
- 1D
- -0.16%
- 1M
- -1.29%
- 6M
- -6.46%
- YTD
- -6.58%
- 1Y
- -10.62%
- 3Y*
- 2.54%
- 5Y*
- 3.98%
- 10Y*
- 6.30%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.90%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2.17K | $7.30K | $19.86K | |
| $30.15K | $28.17K | $19.88K |
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B | 23.05% | 2.05% | 15.68% | 16.89% | 21.91% | 28.83% | -36.47% | -1.78% | -19.25% | -13.07% |
BDCZ ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN | -6.58% | -3.72% | 12.22% | 25.31% | -9.12% | 33.97% | -10.95% | 26.00% | -7.64% | 0.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between AMUB and BDCZ is 0.03, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.03 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.30 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.44 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.41 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2015 | 0.40 |
Over the past year, the correlation between AMUB and BDCZ has dropped to 0.03 - well below their long-term average of 0.40, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
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
AMUB vs. BDCZ — Risk / Return Rank
AMUB
BDCZ
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN (BDCZ). 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.
| AMUB | BDCZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.78 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 0.93 | +0.29 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.65 | -0.69 | +2.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.50 | -1.24 | +5.74 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than BDCZ's maximum drawdown of -55.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and BDCZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AMUB | BDCZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -79.46% | -55.63% | -23.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.02% | -16.80% | +5.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.22% | -20.77% | +3.55% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.58% | -23.12% | +2.54% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.86% | -55.63% | -23.23% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.28% | -16.01% | +14.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.87% | -7.98% | -20.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.36% | 9.36% | -5.00% |
Volatility
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) is 4.77%, while ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN (BDCZ) has a volatility of 5.90%. This indicates that AMUB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BDCZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AMUB | BDCZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.77% | 5.90% | -1.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.09% | 18.49% | -7.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.47% | 22.56% | -8.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.86% | 18.27% | +1.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.18% | 21.96% | +5.22% |
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than BDCZ's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
AMUB vs. BDCZ - Dividend Comparison
AMUB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BDCZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.12%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
BDCZ ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN | 12.12% | 10.65% | 9.26% | 9.13% | 9.39% | 7.49% | 10.01% | 8.40% | 9.66% | 8.74% | 7.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AMUB and BDCZ have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BDCZ has higher volatility (5.90%) compared to AMUB (4.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMUB dropped -79.46% vs BDCZ's -55.63%.
On 10-year performance, BDCZ leads with 6.30% vs 3.58% for AMUB. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, AMUB has been the lower-risk option at 4.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, BDCZ has performed better with a 6.30% return vs 3.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BDCZ.
BDCZ has the higher dividend yield at 12.12%, compared with 0.00% for AMUB.
AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while BDCZ is Financials Equities. AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while BDCZ tracks BDCZ-US - MVIS US Business Development Companies Index. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.85% for BDCZ.
AMUB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.26 vs -0.52), 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 AMUB and BDCZ
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