BCFN vs. UCO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - BCFN is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Actively Managed, while UCO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.20, they often move in opposite directions. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

BCFN vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -14.97% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 69.20% return.

BCFN

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 0.14%
• YTD: -14.97%
• 6M: -16.44%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UCO

• 1D: -6.97%
• 1M: -30.80%
• YTD: 69.20%
• 6M: 64.11%
• 1Y: 44.07%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: 10.47%
• 10Y*: 18.60%

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

BCFN vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCFN Baron Financials ETF	-14.97%	-0.45%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	69.20%	-0.31%

Correlation

The correlation between BCFN and UCO is -0.20, 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 15, 2025	-0.20

Return for Risk

BCFN vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCFN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 25
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 25
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

BCFN vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). 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	UCO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.79	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.34	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.16	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.19	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	2.71	—

Drawdowns

BCFN vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCFN	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.95%	-99.86%	+78.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-37.09%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-50.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-67.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-96.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.09%	-86.87%	+69.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.63%	-82.11%	+69.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	16.32%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BCFN	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	17.09%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	48.66%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.90%	56.87%	-37.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.90%	60.17%	-41.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.90%	317.72%	-298.82%

BCFN vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCFN vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

Neither BCFN nor UCO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCFN and UCO in my portfolio?

BCFN and UCO have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BCFN or UCO?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCFN or UCO?

BCFN is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCFN or UCO?

BCFN and UCO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BCFN and UCO?

BCFN is categorized as Financials Equities, while UCO is Oil & Gas. BCFN tracks Actively Managed, while UCO tracks Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.95% for UCO.