BCD vs. LQDW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BCD (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCD is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while LQDW is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index. BCD is actively managed, while LQDW is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BCD returned 14.50%/yr vs 3.86%/yr for LQDW. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCD charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for LQDW.

Performance

BCD vs. LQDW - 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 iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCD achieves a 20.64% return, which is significantly higher than LQDW's 1.45% return.

BCD

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: -0.13%
• YTD: 20.64%
• 6M: 21.15%
• 1Y: 32.33%
• 3Y*: 14.50%
• 5Y*: 12.32%
• 10Y*: —

LQDW

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.55%
• YTD: 1.45%
• 6M: 1.91%
• 1Y: 6.71%
• 3Y*: 3.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCD vs. LQDW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BCD abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	20.64%	15.71%	6.20%	-7.58%	-5.09%
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF	1.45%	9.05%	2.60%	3.99%	-6.78%

Correlation

The correlation between BCD and LQDW is -0.25, 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	-0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2022	0.01

The correlation between BCD and LQDW shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BCD vs. LQDW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCD

BCD Risk / Return Rank: 73
BCD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
BCD Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
BCD Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BCD Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BCD Martin Ratio Rank: 72

LQDW

LQDW Risk / Return Rank: 57
LQDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
LQDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
LQDW Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LQDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
LQDW Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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. LQDW - 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 iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW). 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.

	BCD	LQDW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	1.91	+0.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.07	2.71	+0.36
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.39	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.82	2.59	+2.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.78	9.69	+4.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BCD vs. LQDW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCD Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is comparable to the LQDW Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCD and LQDW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BCD	LQDW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37	1.91	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.47	+0.20

Drawdowns

BCD vs. LQDW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCD drawdown since its inception was -29.81%, which is greater than LQDW's maximum drawdown of -9.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCD and LQDW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCD	LQDW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.81%	-9.20%	-20.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.22%	-2.59%	-4.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.50%	-6.74%	-3.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.44%	-0.15%	-3.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.86%	-2.35%	-7.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	0.69%	+1.84%

Volatility

BCD vs. LQDW - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD) has a higher volatility of 4.49% compared to iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) at 1.53%. This indicates that BCD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQDW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCD	LQDW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.49%	1.53%	+2.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.74%	3.01%	+8.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.83%	3.52%	+10.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.42%	5.50%	+9.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.90%	5.50%	+8.40%

BCD vs. LQDW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCD has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than LQDW's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCD vs. LQDW - Dividend Comparison

BCD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.27%, less than LQDW's 14.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCD abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	14.27%	17.21%	3.60%	4.51%	5.21%	8.30%	1.29%	1.55%	1.59%	0.07%
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF	12.55%	16.02%	15.74%	19.28%	8.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCD and LQDW in my portfolio?

BCD and LQDW have a correlation of -0.25, 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 LQDW?

BCD has higher volatility (4.49%) compared to LQDW (1.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCD dropped -29.81% vs LQDW's -9.20%.

Which ETF is better, BCD or LQDW?

On 3-year performance, BCD leads with 14.50% vs 3.86% for LQDW. On fees, BCD is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, LQDW has been the lower-risk option at 1.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCD or LQDW?

Over the 3-year period, BCD has performed better with a 14.50% return vs 3.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCD or LQDW?

BCD is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.

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

LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 14.42%, compared with 14.27% for BCD.

What is the main difference between BCD and LQDW?

BCD is categorized as Commodities, while LQDW is Corporate Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for BCD and 0.34% for LQDW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.91), 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.