BCFN vs. QABA
BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and QABA (First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund) are both Financials Equities funds - BCFN tracks the Actively Managed while QABA tracks the NASDAQ OMX ABA Community Bank Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QABA.
Performance
BCFN vs. QABA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -14.62% return, which is significantly lower than QABA's 16.85% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 0.55%
- YTD
- -14.62%
- 6M
- -15.87%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QABA
- 1D
- 1.68%
- 1M
- 5.99%
- YTD
- 16.85%
- 6M
- 13.71%
- 1Y
- 26.59%
- 3Y*
- 22.25%
- 5Y*
- 5.53%
- 10Y*
- 8.33%
BCFN vs. QABA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -14.62% | -0.45% |
QABA First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund | 16.85% | -4.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and QABA is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2025 | 0.40 |
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. QABA — Risk / Return Rank
BCFN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QABA
BCFN vs. QABA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund (QABA). 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 | QABA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.23 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.14 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 5.34 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCFN vs. QABA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, smaller than the maximum QABA drawdown of -49.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and QABA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCFN | QABA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.95% | -49.30% | +28.35% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -12.49% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -25.82% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -42.93% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -49.30% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.74% | 0.00% | -16.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.60% | -11.40% | -1.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.99% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. QABA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | QABA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 6.08% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 15.48% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.97% | 22.55% | -3.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.97% | 26.39% | -7.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.97% | 28.64% | -9.67% |
BCFN vs. QABA - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than QABA's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCFN vs. QABA - Dividend Comparison
BCFN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QABA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.22%.
| 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% |
QABA First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund | 2.22% | 2.52% | 2.37% | 2.71% | 2.10% | 1.68% | 2.55% | 1.95% | 1.90% | 1.42% | 1.13% | 1.39% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCFN and QABA have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QABA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QABA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCFN.
QABA has the higher dividend yield at 2.22%, compared with 0.00% for BCFN.
BCFN tracks Actively Managed, while QABA tracks NASDAQ OMX ABA Community Bank Index. They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.60% for QABA.
Find the right allocation for BCFN and QABA
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