BCI vs. AFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BCI returned 38.68% vs 28.96% for AFSC. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCI charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

BCI vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCI achieves a 26.68% return, which is significantly higher than AFSC's 17.39% return.

BCI

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -3.06%
• YTD: 26.68%
• 6M: 25.55%
• 1Y: 38.68%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 11.07%
• 10Y*: —

AFSC

• 1D: 0.86%
• 1M: 1.65%
• YTD: 17.39%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 28.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCI vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	26.68%	5.61%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	17.39%	2.67%

Correlation

The correlation between BCI and AFSC is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.01

Return for Risk

BCI vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 71
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 70

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 48
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 40
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

BCI vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). 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.

	BCI	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	1.57	+0.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	2.24	+0.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.26	+0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.10	2.76	+2.34
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.14	10.46	+2.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BCI vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is higher than the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCI and AFSC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BCI	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30	1.57	+0.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.70	-0.22

Drawdowns

BCI vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCI drawdown since its inception was -32.69%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCI and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCI	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.69%	-21.68%	-11.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-10.29%	+2.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.38%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.52%	-1.10%	-3.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.00%	-4.16%	-7.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	2.72%	+0.23%

Volatility

BCI vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) is 5.16%, while abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a volatility of 5.55%. This indicates that BCI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCI	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.16%	5.55%	-0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.80%	13.99%	+0.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.92%	18.58%	-1.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	22.60%	-5.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.65%	22.60%	-6.95%

BCI vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCI has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCI vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison

BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.01%, more than AFSC's 0.07% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	13.01%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCI and AFSC in my portfolio?

BCI and AFSC have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCI or AFSC?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.55%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCI dropped -32.69% vs AFSC's -21.68%.

Which ETF is better, BCI or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, BCI leads with 38.68% vs 28.96% for AFSC. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 5.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCI or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, BCI has performed better with a 38.68% return vs 28.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCI or AFSC?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCI or AFSC?

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 0.07% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between BCI and AFSC?

BCI is categorized as Commodities, while AFSC is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for BCI and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.57), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.