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. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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 -14.51% return, which is significantly lower than XLF's -1.10% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- -0.18%
- 1M
- 0.68%
- YTD
- -14.51%
- 6M
- -15.75%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XLF
- 1D
- 0.59%
- 1M
- 3.75%
- YTD
- -1.10%
- 6M
- -2.09%
- 1Y
- 8.66%
- 3Y*
- 19.81%
- 5Y*
- 10.20%
- 10Y*
- 13.68%
BCFN vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -14.51% | -0.45% |
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF | -1.10% | 0.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and XLF is 0.79, 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 | 0.79 |
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 | — | 1.11 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.59 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 1.50 | — |
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 | -16.64% | -3.96% | -12.68% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.57% | -20.00% | +7.43% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.78% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | XLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.12% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.27% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.05% | 14.64% | +4.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.05% | 18.58% | +0.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.05% | 22.18% | -3.13% |
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 1.82%.
| 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 | 1.82% | 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 0.79, 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 1.82%, 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