BCIL vs. EFAV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BCIL (Bancreek International Large Cap ETF) and EFAV (iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. BCIL is actively managed, while EFAV is passively managed. Over the past year, BCIL returned -0.68% vs 9.41% for EFAV. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BCIL charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for EFAV.

Performance

BCIL vs. EFAV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bancreek International Large Cap ETF (BCIL) and iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCIL achieves a 6.33% return, which is significantly higher than EFAV's 3.83% return.

BCIL

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: 6.33%
• 6M: 7.29%
• 1Y: -0.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFAV

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: -1.10%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 6M: 5.18%
• 1Y: 9.41%
• 3Y*: 12.87%
• 5Y*: 6.17%
• 10Y*: 5.93%

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

BCIL vs. EFAV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BCIL Bancreek International Large Cap ETF	6.33%	11.95%	0.56%
EFAV iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF	3.83%	26.00%	2.97%

Correlation

The correlation between BCIL and EFAV is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024	0.72

The correlation between BCIL and EFAV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

BCIL vs. EFAV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCIL	EFAV
Industrials	22.7%	15.1%
Consumer Defensive	18.0%	11.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	5.2%
Financial Services	10.2%	19.9%
Technology	9.6%	4.5%
Communication Services	7.0%	9.7%
Basic Materials	6.4%	1.6%
Healthcare	6.1%	12.4%
Utilities	3.3%	9.1%
Energy	-	8.2%
Real Estate	-	2.9%

Return for Risk

BCIL vs. EFAV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCIL

BCIL Risk / Return Rank: 8
BCIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
BCIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
BCIL Omega Ratio Rank: 8
BCIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
BCIL Martin Ratio Rank: 8

EFAV

EFAV Risk / Return Rank: 26
EFAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
EFAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
EFAV Omega Ratio Rank: 24
EFAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
EFAV Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

BCIL vs. EFAV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bancreek International Large Cap ETF (BCIL) and iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV). 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.

	BCIL	EFAV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	0.92	-0.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.06	1.33	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.17	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	1.46	-1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.10	4.10	-4.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BCIL vs. EFAV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCIL Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the EFAV Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCIL and EFAV, 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

	BCIL	EFAV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04	0.92	-0.96
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.45	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.53	0.00

Drawdowns

BCIL vs. EFAV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCIL drawdown since its inception was -16.18%, smaller than the maximum EFAV drawdown of -27.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCIL and EFAV.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCIL	EFAV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.18%	-27.56%	+11.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.18%	-6.46%	-9.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-8.75%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.46%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-27.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.07%	-5.61%	+1.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.29%	-4.77%	+0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.05%	2.30%	+4.75%

Volatility

BCIL vs. EFAV - Volatility Comparison

Bancreek International Large Cap ETF (BCIL) has a higher volatility of 6.46% compared to iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV) at 3.17%. This indicates that BCIL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCIL	EFAV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	3.17%	+3.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.14%	8.17%	+5.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.35%	10.35%	+6.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.20%	11.79%	+4.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.20%	13.21%	+2.99%

BCIL vs. EFAV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCIL has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than EFAV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCIL vs. EFAV - Dividend Comparison

BCIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, less than EFAV's 3.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BCIL Bancreek International Large Cap ETF	1.00%	1.25%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EFAV iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF	3.08%	3.20%	3.24%	3.08%	2.53%	2.47%	1.33%	4.19%	3.34%	2.45%	3.94%	2.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCIL and EFAV in my portfolio?

BCIL and EFAV have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCIL or EFAV?

BCIL has higher volatility (6.46%) compared to EFAV (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCIL dropped -16.18% vs EFAV's -27.56%.

Which ETF is better, BCIL or EFAV?

On 1-year performance, EFAV leads with 9.41% vs -0.68% for BCIL. On fees, EFAV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, EFAV has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCIL or EFAV?

Over the 1-year period, EFAV has performed better with a 9.41% return vs -0.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCIL or EFAV?

EFAV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCIL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCIL or EFAV?

EFAV has the higher dividend yield at 3.08%, compared with 1.00% for BCIL.

What is the main difference between BCIL and EFAV?

They also come from different issuers: Bancreek and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCIL and 0.20% for EFAV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.92 vs -0.04), 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.