BCFN vs. EMLP
BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and EMLP (First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - BCFN is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Actively Managed, while EMLP is a MLPs fund actively managed by First Trust. BCFN is passively managed, while EMLP is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.96%/yr for EMLP.
Performance
BCFN vs. EMLP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -17.02% return, which is significantly lower than EMLP's 15.36% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- -2.00%
- 1M
- -4.60%
- YTD
- -17.02%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMLP
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- -2.32%
- YTD
- 15.36%
- 6M
- 13.55%
- 1Y
- 21.39%
- 3Y*
- 21.59%
- 5Y*
- 15.62%
- 10Y*
- 10.17%
BCFN vs. EMLP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -17.02% | 0.35% |
EMLP First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund | 15.36% | -0.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and EMLP is -0.12, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2025 | -0.12 |
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
BCFN vs. EMLP — Risk / Return Rank
BCFN
EMLP
BCFN vs. EMLP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BCFN | EMLP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.18 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.08 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.58 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -1.70 | 0.57 | -2.27 |
Drawdowns
BCFN vs. EMLP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, smaller than the maximum EMLP drawdown of -43.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and EMLP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCFN | EMLP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.95% | -43.61% | +22.66% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -4.94% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -11.47% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -14.59% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -43.61% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.09% | -3.00% | -16.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.17% | -5.76% | -6.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.53% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. EMLP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | EMLP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.18% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 7.82% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.41% | 9.97% | +9.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.41% | 14.53% | +4.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.41% | 17.69% | +1.72% |
BCFN vs. EMLP - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than EMLP's 0.96% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCFN vs. EMLP - Dividend Comparison
BCFN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMLP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EMLP First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund | 2.77% | 3.18% | 3.19% | 3.92% | 3.15% | 3.29% | 4.70% | 3.71% | 4.71% | 3.80% | 3.62% | 4.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCFN and EMLP have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BCFN is cheaper at 0.80% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BCFN is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for EMLP.
EMLP has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 0.00% for BCFN.
BCFN is categorized as Financials Equities, while EMLP is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.96% for EMLP.
Find the right allocation for BCFN and EMLP
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