BCI vs. GLTR
BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. BCI is actively managed, while GLTR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BCI returned 11.07%/yr vs 15.32%/yr for GLTR. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCI charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.
Performance
BCI vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCI achieves a 26.68% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's 1.47% return.
BCI
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -3.06%
- YTD
- 26.68%
- 6M
- 25.55%
- 1Y
- 38.68%
- 3Y*
- 15.96%
- 5Y*
- 11.07%
- 10Y*
- —
GLTR
- 1D
- -1.81%
- 1M
- -1.45%
- YTD
- 1.47%
- 6M
- 10.73%
- 1Y
- 53.06%
- 3Y*
- 32.36%
- 5Y*
- 15.32%
- 10Y*
- 13.17%
BCI vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 26.68% | 15.07% | 5.47% | -8.79% | 15.09% | 26.18% | -2.77% | 7.06% | -11.21% | 2.94% |
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | 1.47% | 87.25% | 20.63% | 2.01% | -0.25% | -9.60% | 29.52% | 20.96% | -2.85% | 2.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCI and GLTR is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2017 | 0.44 |
The correlation between BCI and GLTR shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (1 year) to 0.50 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
BCI vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank
BCI
GLTR
BCI vs. GLTR - 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 Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). 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 | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.88 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | 1.29 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.10 | 1.80 | +3.31 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.14 | 4.13 | +9.00 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BCI | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.30 | 1.42 | +0.88 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.66 | 0.65 | +0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.64 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.48 | 0.32 | +0.16 |
Drawdowns
BCI vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCI drawdown since its inception was -32.69%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCI and GLTR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCI | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.69% | -55.70% | +23.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.61% | -29.70% | +22.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.38% | -29.70% | +18.32% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.50% | -29.70% | +3.20% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -29.70% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.52% | -26.86% | +22.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.00% | -28.83% | +16.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.95% | 12.88% | -9.93% |
Volatility
BCI vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) is 5.16%, while Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 9.13%. This indicates that BCI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCI | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.16% | 9.13% | -3.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.80% | 35.41% | -20.61% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.92% | 37.58% | -20.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.82% | 23.63% | -6.81% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.65% | 20.50% | -4.85% |
BCI vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCI has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCI vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison
BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.01%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCI and GLTR have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLTR has higher volatility (9.13%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCI dropped -32.69% vs GLTR's -55.70%.
On 5-year performance, GLTR leads with 15.32% vs 11.07% for BCI. 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.
Over the 5-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 15.32% return vs 11.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.
BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.
BCI is categorized as Commodities, while GLTR is Precious Metals. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for BCI and 0.60% for GLTR.
BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.42), 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.
Find the right allocation for BCI and GLTR
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