BCFN vs. XLF
BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - BCFN tracks the Actively Managed while XLF tracks the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.80 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLF.
Performance
BCFN vs. XLF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -8.91% return, which is significantly lower than XLF's 4.86% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 1.82%
- 6M
- -4.65%
- YTD
- -8.91%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
XLF
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 2.37%
- 6M
- 7.47%
- YTD
- 4.86%
- 1Y
- 12.50%
- 3Y*
- 19.11%
- 5Y*
- 11.20%
- 10Y*
- 13.69%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.09%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $34.29K | $30.00K | $73.20K | |
| $1.84B | $1.93B | $1.92B |
BCFN vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -8.91% | -0.45% |
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF | 4.86% | 0.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and XLF is 0.80, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2025 | 0.80 |
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. XLF — Risk / Return Rank
BCFN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
XLF
BCFN vs. XLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). 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 | XLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.13 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.71 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 1.80 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCFN vs. XLF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, smaller than the maximum XLF drawdown of -82.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and XLF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCFN | XLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.95% | -82.69% | +61.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -14.79% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.54% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -25.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.86% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.17% | -1.15% | -10.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.62% | -19.92% | +7.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.79% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | XLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.07% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.10% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.88% | 14.77% | +4.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.88% | 18.45% | +0.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.88% | 22.08% | -3.20% |
BCFN vs. XLF - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than XLF's 0.08% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCFN vs. XLF - Dividend Comparison
BCFN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XLF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%.
| 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% |
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF | 1.42% | 1.31% | 1.42% | 1.71% | 2.04% | 1.63% | 2.03% | 1.87% | 2.08% | 1.48% | 21.10% | 1.95% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCFN and XLF have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCFN.
XLF has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.00% for BCFN.
BCFN tracks Actively Managed, while XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.08% for XLF.
Find the right allocation for BCFN and XLF
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