BCI vs. GNR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while GNR is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Natural Resources Index. BCI is actively managed, while GNR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BCI returned 11.47%/yr vs 10.00%/yr for GNR. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BCI charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GNR.

Performance

BCI vs. GNR - 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 S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCI achieves a 26.83% return, which is significantly higher than GNR's 20.90% return.

BCI

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: -1.78%
• YTD: 26.83%
• 6M: 26.31%
• 1Y: 38.98%
• 3Y*: 16.01%
• 5Y*: 11.47%
• 10Y*: —

GNR

• 1D: 1.34%
• 1M: 1.31%
• YTD: 20.90%
• 6M: 25.48%
• 1Y: 43.47%
• 3Y*: 15.75%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: 10.96%

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

BCI vs. GNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	26.83%	15.07%	5.47%	-8.79%	15.09%	26.18%	-2.77%	7.06%	-11.21%	2.94%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	20.90%	28.68%	-8.27%	2.95%	10.20%	24.73%	-0.03%	16.49%	-13.19%	18.52%

Correlation

The correlation between BCI and GNR is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2017	0.56

The correlation between BCI and GNR shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.58 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BCI vs. GNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCI	GNR
Financial Services	100.0%	0.0%
Basic Materials	-	50.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.6%
Energy	-	37.6%
Healthcare	-	0.0%
Industrials	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	0.8%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

BCI vs. GNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 73
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 69
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 74

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 83
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. GNR - 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 S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). 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	GNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.32	2.67	-0.35
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	3.41	-0.47
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.47	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.52	5.74	-0.23
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.29	22.57	-8.28
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. GNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is comparable to the GNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCI and GNR, 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	GNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.32	2.67	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	0.50	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.26	+0.22

Drawdowns

BCI vs. GNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCI drawdown since its inception was -32.69%, smaller than the maximum GNR drawdown of -51.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCI and GNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCI	GNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.69%	-51.37%	+18.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-7.97%	+0.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.38%	-21.15%	+9.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.50%	-25.66%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.40%	-0.99%	-3.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.01%	-14.96%	+2.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.94%	2.03%	+0.91%

Volatility

BCI vs. GNR - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) at 4.52%. This indicates that BCI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCI	GNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	4.52%	+0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.81%	13.21%	+1.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.04%	16.45%	+0.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.83%	20.24%	-3.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.65%	21.88%	-6.23%

BCI vs. GNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCI has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than GNR's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCI vs. GNR - Dividend Comparison

BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.00%, more than GNR's 2.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	13.00%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%	0.00%	0.00%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.45%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCI and GNR in my portfolio?

BCI and GNR have a correlation of 0.46, 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 GNR?

BCI has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to GNR (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCI dropped -32.69% vs GNR's -51.37%.

Which ETF is better, BCI or GNR?

On 5-year performance, BCI leads with 11.47% vs 10.00% for GNR. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, GNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCI or GNR?

Over the 5-year period, BCI has performed better with a 11.47% return vs 10.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCI or GNR?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GNR.

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

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.00%, compared with 2.45% for GNR.

What is the main difference between BCI and GNR?

BCI is categorized as Commodities, while GNR is Commodity Producers Equities. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for BCI and 0.40% for GNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 2.32), 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.