BCD vs. AFSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BCD (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCD is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BCD returned 18.61% vs 34.76% for AFSC. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCD charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

BCD vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCD achieves a 11.14% return, which is significantly lower than AFSC's 24.40% return.

BCD

• 1D: -1.38%
• 1M: -7.90%
• YTD: 11.14%
• 6M: 9.67%
• 1Y: 18.61%
• 3Y*: 10.61%
• 5Y*: 10.63%
• 10Y*: —

AFSC

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 6.74%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 6M: 19.46%
• 1Y: 34.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCD vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCD abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	11.14%	7.67%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	24.40%	2.33%

Correlation

The correlation between BCD and AFSC is -0.03, 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	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.03

Return for Risk

BCD vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCD

BCD Risk / Return Rank: 39
BCD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
BCD Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
BCD Omega Ratio Rank: 39
BCD Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
BCD Martin Ratio Rank: 43

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 65
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

BCD vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	BCD	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	1.84	-0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	2.60	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.31	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	3.40	-1.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.74	12.89	-6.15

BCD vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCD Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCD and AFSC, 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

BCD vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCD drawdown since its inception was -29.81%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCD and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCD	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.81%	-21.93%	-7.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.04%	-10.29%	-0.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.04%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.04%	-1.29%	-9.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.84%	-4.12%	-5.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.80%	2.70%	+0.10%

Volatility

BCD vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD) is 3.34%, while abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a volatility of 5.46%. This indicates that BCD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCD	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.34%	5.46%	-2.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.01%	14.59%	-2.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.99%	19.01%	-5.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.38%	22.51%	-7.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.90%	22.51%	-8.61%

BCD vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCD has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCD vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison

BCD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 15.49%, more than AFSC's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
BCD abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	15.49%	17.21%	3.60%	4.51%	5.21%	8.30%	1.29%	1.55%	1.59%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCD and AFSC in my portfolio?

BCD and AFSC 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.

Which is riskier, BCD or AFSC?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to BCD (3.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCD dropped -29.81% vs AFSC's -21.93%.

Which ETF is better, BCD or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, AFSC leads with 34.76% vs 18.61% for BCD. On fees, BCD is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, BCD has been the lower-risk option at 3.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCD or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, AFSC has performed better with a 34.76% return vs 18.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCD or AFSC?

BCD is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

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

BCD has the higher dividend yield at 15.49%, compared with 0.06% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between BCD and AFSC?

BCD is categorized as Commodities, while AFSC is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for BCD and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.34), 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.