BCI vs. EMHC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and EMHC (SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while EMHC is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net. BCI is actively managed, while EMHC is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BCI returned 10.84%/yr vs 1.60%/yr for EMHC. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCI charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for EMHC.

Performance

BCI vs. EMHC - 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 SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCI achieves a 25.35% return, which is significantly higher than EMHC's 1.81% return.

BCI

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: -3.58%
• YTD: 25.35%
• 6M: 24.07%
• 1Y: 37.16%
• 3Y*: 15.51%
• 5Y*: 10.84%
• 10Y*: —

EMHC

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: 1.81%
• 6M: 2.02%
• 1Y: 11.46%
• 3Y*: 8.60%
• 5Y*: 1.60%
• 10Y*: —

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

BCI vs. EMHC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	25.35%	15.07%	5.47%	-8.79%	15.09%	17.79%
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF	1.81%	14.07%	3.52%	10.06%	-17.75%	1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between BCI and EMHC is -0.26, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021	0.08

The correlation between BCI and EMHC shifts across timeframes, from -0.26 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BCI vs. EMHC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCI	EMHC
Financial Services	100.0%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BCI vs. EMHC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 70
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 69

EMHC

EMHC Risk / Return Rank: 64
EMHC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
EMHC Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
EMHC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
EMHC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
EMHC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. EMHC - 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 SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC). 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	EMHC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	2.13	+0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.21	-0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.41	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.90	2.63	+2.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	11.01	+1.52
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. EMHC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the EMHC Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCI and EMHC, 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	EMHC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.20	2.13	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65	0.18	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.47	0.22	+0.25

Drawdowns

BCI vs. EMHC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCI drawdown since its inception was -32.69%, which is greater than EMHC's maximum drawdown of -28.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCI and EMHC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCI	EMHC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.69%	-28.03%	-4.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-4.37%	-3.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.38%	-7.67%	-3.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.50%	-28.03%	+1.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.52%	-0.08%	-5.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.00%	-9.90%	-2.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.97%	1.04%	+1.93%

Volatility

BCI vs. EMHC - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) has a higher volatility of 5.23% compared to SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) at 1.87%. This indicates that BCI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMHC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCI	EMHC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.23%	1.87%	+3.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.84%	4.16%	+10.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.96%	5.42%	+11.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	9.06%	+7.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.65%	8.96%	+6.69%

BCI vs. EMHC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCI has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than EMHC's 0.23% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BCI vs. EMHC - Dividend Comparison

BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.15%, more than EMHC's 6.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	13.15%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF	6.10%	6.16%	5.95%	5.12%	5.11%	2.97%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCI and EMHC in my portfolio?

BCI and EMHC have a correlation of -0.26, 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 EMHC?

BCI has higher volatility (5.23%) compared to EMHC (1.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCI dropped -32.69% vs EMHC's -28.03%.

Which ETF is better, BCI or EMHC?

On 5-year performance, BCI leads with 10.84% vs 1.60% for EMHC. On fees, EMHC is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, EMHC has been the lower-risk option at 1.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCI or EMHC?

Over the 5-year period, BCI has performed better with a 10.84% return vs 1.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCI or EMHC?

EMHC is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for BCI.

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

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.15%, compared with 6.10% for EMHC.

What is the main difference between BCI and EMHC?

BCI is categorized as Commodities, while EMHC is Emerging Markets Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for BCI and 0.23% for EMHC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.13), 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.