BCCC vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCCC is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Global X, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. BCCC is actively managed, while RBIL is passively managed. Over the past year, BCCC returned -27.47% vs 3.95% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

BCCC vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -22.13% return, which is significantly lower than RBIL's 2.31% return.

BCCC

• 1D: 1.83%
• 1M: -13.01%
• YTD: -22.13%
• 6M: -21.74%
• 1Y: -27.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.20%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 6M: 2.35%
• 1Y: 3.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCCC vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	-22.13%	-7.02%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.31%	1.82%

Correlation

The correlation between BCCC and RBIL is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

BCCC vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCCC

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

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.78	4.18	-4.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.95	6.39	-7.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	2.06	-1.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.66	7.59	-8.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.21	44.07	-45.28

BCCC vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCCC Sharpe Ratio is -0.78, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCCC and RBIL, 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. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.63%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCCC	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.63%	-0.52%	-41.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.63%	-0.52%	-41.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.76%	-0.51%	-37.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.79%	-0.07%	-17.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.73%	0.09%	+22.64%

Volatility

BCCC vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) has a higher volatility of 10.69% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that BCCC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCCC	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.69%	0.36%	+10.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.96%	0.85%	+28.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.36%	0.95%	+34.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.08%	1.07%	+34.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.08%	1.07%	+34.01%

BCCC vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCCC vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 64.45%, more than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	64.45%	29.55%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCCC and RBIL in my portfolio?

BCCC and RBIL have a correlation of -0.11, 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 RBIL?

BCCC has higher volatility (10.69%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.63% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, BCCC or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, RBIL leads with 3.95% vs -27.47% for BCCC. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCCC or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, RBIL has performed better with a 3.95% return vs -27.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCCC or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for BCCC.

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

BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 64.45%, compared with 4.38% for RBIL.

What is the main difference between BCCC and RBIL?

BCCC is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Global X and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.18 vs -0.78), 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.