BCI vs. HARD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) and HARD (Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF) are both Commodities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BCI returned 15.96%/yr vs 13.00%/yr for HARD. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BCI charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for HARD.

Performance

BCI vs. HARD - 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 Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD). 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 HARD's 14.81% return.

BCI

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

HARD

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: -9.01%
• YTD: 14.81%
• 6M: 14.73%
• 1Y: 24.26%
• 3Y*: 13.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCI vs. HARD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	26.68%	15.07%	5.47%	-2.28%
HARD Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF	14.81%	12.19%	20.48%	-5.04%

Correlation

The correlation between BCI and HARD is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 2023	0.53

Over the past year, BCI and HARD have become more correlated (0.74) than their long-term average of 0.53, meaning their price movements have been converging.

BCI vs. HARD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCI	HARD
Financial Services	100.0%	26.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BCI vs. HARD — 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

HARD

HARD Risk / Return Rank: 29
HARD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
HARD Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
HARD Omega Ratio Rank: 25
HARD Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
HARD Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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. HARD - 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 Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD). 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	HARD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	0.92	+1.38
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	1.29	+1.63
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.17	+0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.10	1.97	+3.14
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.14	4.51	+8.62
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. HARD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is higher than the HARD Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCI and HARD, 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	HARD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30	0.92	+1.38
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	0.68	-0.20

Drawdowns

BCI vs. HARD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCI drawdown since its inception was -32.69%, which is greater than HARD's maximum drawdown of -13.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCI and HARD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCI	HARD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.69%	-13.51%	-19.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-12.38%	+4.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.38%	-13.51%	+2.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.52%	-10.38%	+5.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.00%	-5.47%	-6.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	5.39%	-2.44%

Volatility

BCI vs. HARD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) is 5.16%, while Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD) has a volatility of 8.11%. This indicates that BCI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HARD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCI	HARD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.16%	8.11%	-2.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.80%	21.64%	-6.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.92%	26.47%	-9.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	19.09%	-2.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.65%	19.09%	-3.44%

BCI vs. HARD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCI has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than HARD's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCI vs. HARD - Dividend Comparison

BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.01%, more than HARD's 2.61% yield.

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%
HARD Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF	2.61%	2.36%	3.51%	1.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCI and HARD in my portfolio?

BCI and HARD have a correlation of 0.74, 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 HARD?

HARD has higher volatility (8.11%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCI dropped -32.69% vs HARD's -13.51%.

Which ETF is better, BCI or HARD?

On 3-year performance, BCI leads with 15.96% vs 13.00% for HARD. 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 HARD?

Over the 3-year period, BCI has performed better with a 15.96% return vs 13.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCI or HARD?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for HARD.

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

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 2.61% for HARD.

What is the main difference between BCI and HARD?

They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for BCI and 0.75% for HARD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 0.92), 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.