BCCC vs. BFJL

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and BFJL (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July) are both exchange-traded funds - BCCC is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Global X, while BFJL is a Defined Outcome fund managed by First Trust. Over the past year, BCCC returned -34.03% vs -15.87% for BFJL. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BFJL.

Performance

BCCC vs. BFJL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July (BFJL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -22.30% return, which is significantly lower than BFJL's -4.85% return.

BCCC

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 1.59%
• 6M: -24.48%
• YTD: -22.30%
• 1Y: -34.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BFJL

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 3.02%
• 6M: -6.00%
• YTD: -4.85%
• 1Y: -15.87%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCCC vs. BFJL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	-22.30%	-9.77%
BFJL FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July	-4.85%	-7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between BCCC and BFJL is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.86

The correlation between BCCC and BFJL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BCCC vs. BFJL — Risk / Return Rank

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

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: 3
BCCC Martin Ratio Rank: 2

BFJL

BFJL Risk / Return Rank: 2
BFJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
BFJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
BFJL Omega Ratio Rank: 1
BFJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
BFJL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

BCCC vs. BFJL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July (BFJL). 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.

	BCCC	BFJL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.92	-1.09	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.21	-1.46	+0.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	0.82	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.78	-0.68	-0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.34	-0.95	-0.38

BCCC vs. BFJL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCCC Sharpe Ratio is -0.92, which is comparable to the BFJL Sharpe Ratio of -1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCCC and BFJL, 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

BCCC vs. BFJL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.79%, which is greater than BFJL's maximum drawdown of -21.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and BFJL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCCC	BFJL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.79%	-21.27%	-20.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.79%	-21.27%	-20.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.90%	-18.79%	-19.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.82%	-12.58%	-6.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.46%	15.09%	+9.37%

Volatility

BCCC vs. BFJL - Volatility Comparison

Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July (BFJL) at 1.98%. This indicates that BCCC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BFJL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCCC	BFJL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.93%	1.98%	+5.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.17%	6.69%	+22.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.57%	13.25%	+22.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.79%	13.22%	+21.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.79%	13.22%	+21.57%

BCCC vs. BFJL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BFJL's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCCC vs. BFJL - Dividend Comparison

BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 61.96%, more than BFJL's 1.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	61.96%	29.55%
BFJL FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - July	1.42%	1.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCCC and BFJL in my portfolio?

BCCC and BFJL have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCCC or BFJL?

BCCC has higher volatility (7.93%) compared to BFJL (1.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.79% vs BFJL's -21.27%.

Which ETF is better, BCCC or BFJL?

On 1-year performance, BFJL leads with -15.87% vs -34.03% for BCCC. On fees, BCCC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, BFJL has been the lower-risk option at 1.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCCC or BFJL?

Over the 1-year period, BFJL has performed better with a -15.87% return vs -34.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCCC or BFJL?

BCCC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BFJL.

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

BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 61.96%, compared with 1.42% for BFJL.

What is the main difference between BCCC and BFJL?

BCCC is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while BFJL is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.90% for BFJL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCCC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.92 vs -1.09), 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.