BCFN vs. USL
BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and USL (United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - BCFN is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Actively Managed, while USL is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the 12 Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.25, they often move in opposite directions. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for USL.
Performance
BCFN vs. USL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -7.92% return, which is significantly lower than USL's 48.13% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- 0.36%
- 1M
- 5.79%
- 6M
- -7.09%
- YTD
- -7.92%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
USL
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- 2.63%
- 6M
- 44.56%
- YTD
- 48.13%
- 1Y
- 36.77%
- 3Y*
- 13.15%
- 5Y*
- 14.30%
- 10Y*
- 10.39%
BCFN vs. USL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -7.92% | -0.45% |
USL United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP | 48.13% | 0.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and USL 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2025 | -0.25 |
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. USL — Risk / Return Rank
BCFN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
USL
BCFN vs. USL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). 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 | USL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.22 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.77 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 4.16 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCFN vs. USL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, smaller than the maximum USL drawdown of -89.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and USL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCFN | USL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.95% | -89.06% | +68.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -20.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -23.33% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -33.82% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -66.02% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.21% | -43.82% | +33.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.71% | -61.34% | +48.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 8.87% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. USL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | USL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 9.63% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 24.97% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.08% | 29.20% | -10.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.08% | 30.39% | -11.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.08% | 32.30% | -13.22% |
BCFN vs. USL - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than USL's 0.88% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCFN vs. USL - Dividend Comparison
Neither BCFN nor USL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
BCFN and USL 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.
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 0.88% for USL.
BCFN and USL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
BCFN is categorized as Financials Equities, while USL is Oil & Gas. BCFN tracks Actively Managed, while USL tracks 12 Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.88% for USL.
Find the right allocation for BCFN and USL
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