BCFN vs. IXG
BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and IXG (iShares Global Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - BCFN tracks the Actively Managed while IXG tracks the S&P Global Financials Sector Index. Both are passively managed. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.46%/yr for IXG.
Performance
BCFN vs. IXG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -14.51% return, which is significantly lower than IXG's 5.43% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- -0.18%
- 1M
- 0.68%
- YTD
- -14.51%
- 6M
- -15.75%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IXG
- 1D
- 0.54%
- 1M
- 4.22%
- YTD
- 5.43%
- 6M
- 4.86%
- 1Y
- 20.55%
- 3Y*
- 24.97%
- 5Y*
- 13.37%
- 10Y*
- 13.29%
BCFN vs. IXG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -14.51% | -0.45% |
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF | 5.43% | 1.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and IXG is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2025 | 0.64 |
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. IXG — Risk / Return Rank
BCFN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IXG
BCFN vs. IXG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG). 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.
| BCFN | IXG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.25 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.82 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 6.43 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCFN vs. IXG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, smaller than the maximum IXG drawdown of -78.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and IXG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCFN | IXG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.95% | -78.42% | +57.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -11.33% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.54% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -27.20% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -43.47% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.64% | -0.22% | -16.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.57% | -19.71% | +7.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.20% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. IXG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | IXG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.12% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.32% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.05% | 13.92% | +5.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.05% | 17.34% | +1.71% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.05% | 20.11% | -1.06% |
BCFN vs. IXG - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than IXG's 0.46% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCFN vs. IXG - Dividend Comparison
BCFN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IXG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.26%.
| 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% |
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF | 2.26% | 2.04% | 2.64% | 2.62% | 3.71% | 1.69% | 2.13% | 2.87% | 3.14% | 2.12% | 2.21% | 2.79% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCFN and IXG have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IXG is cheaper at 0.46% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IXG is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCFN.
IXG has the higher dividend yield at 2.26%, compared with 0.00% for BCFN.
BCFN tracks Actively Managed, while IXG tracks S&P Global Financials Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.46% for IXG.
Find the right allocation for BCFN and IXG
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