BCUS vs. MOO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BCUS (Bancreek U.S. Large Cap ETF) and MOO (VanEck Agribusiness ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. BCUS is actively managed, while MOO is passively managed. Over the past year, BCUS returned 19.44% vs 6.63% for MOO. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCUS charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for MOO.

Performance

BCUS vs. MOO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bancreek U.S. Large Cap ETF (BCUS) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCUS achieves a 13.90% return, which is significantly higher than MOO's 5.15% return.

BCUS

• 1D: -1.59%
• 1M: 4.80%
• YTD: 13.90%
• 6M: 12.99%
• 1Y: 19.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MOO

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: -4.65%
• YTD: 5.15%
• 6M: 5.57%
• 1Y: 6.63%
• 3Y*: 1.24%
• 5Y*: -1.12%
• 10Y*: 7.00%

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

BCUS vs. MOO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BCUS Bancreek U.S. Large Cap ETF	13.90%	6.56%	21.22%	0.72%
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	5.15%	15.61%	-12.43%	2.92%

Correlation

The correlation between BCUS and MOO is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 21, 2023	0.43

BCUS vs. MOO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCUS	MOO
Technology	24.2%	-
Industrials	18.6%	21.7%
Consumer Cyclical	12.6%	-
Communication Services	12.1%	-
Financial Services	9.0%	-
Basic Materials	8.4%	25.2%
Utilities	5.5%	-
Energy	3.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	37.8%
Healthcare	3.0%	15.3%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

BCUS vs. MOO — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCUS

BCUS Risk / Return Rank: 43
BCUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
BCUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
BCUS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
BCUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BCUS Martin Ratio Rank: 50

MOO

MOO Risk / Return Rank: 16
MOO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
MOO Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
MOO Omega Ratio Rank: 15
MOO Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
MOO Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

BCUS vs. MOO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bancreek U.S. Large Cap ETF (BCUS) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BCUS	MOO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	0.47	+0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.96	0.77	+1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.09	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.99	0.60	+1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.80	1.66	+6.14

BCUS vs. MOO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCUS Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is higher than the MOO Sharpe Ratio of 0.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCUS and MOO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BCUS vs. MOO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCUS drawdown since its inception was -18.14%, smaller than the maximum MOO drawdown of -69.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCUS and MOO.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCUS	MOO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.14%	-69.53%	+51.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.81%	-11.17%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.83%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-39.52%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.59%	-21.21%	+19.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.88%	-16.97%	+14.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.50%	4.01%	-1.51%

Volatility

BCUS vs. MOO - Volatility Comparison

Bancreek U.S. Large Cap ETF (BCUS) has a higher volatility of 6.47% compared to VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) at 3.32%. This indicates that BCUS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MOO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCUS	MOO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.47%	3.32%	+3.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.34%	10.83%	+2.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.30%	14.06%	+1.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.46%	17.13%	-0.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.46%	18.14%	-1.68%

BCUS vs. MOO - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCUS has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than MOO's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCUS vs. MOO - Dividend Comparison

BCUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than MOO's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BCUS Bancreek U.S. Large Cap ETF	0.31%	0.49%	0.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	2.35%	2.47%	3.41%	2.93%	2.15%	1.17%	1.10%	1.26%	1.69%	1.44%	2.14%	2.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCUS and MOO in my portfolio?

BCUS and MOO have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCUS or MOO?

BCUS has higher volatility (6.47%) compared to MOO (3.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCUS dropped -18.14% vs MOO's -69.53%.

Which ETF is better, BCUS or MOO?

On 1-year performance, BCUS leads with 19.44% vs 6.63% for MOO. On fees, MOO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, MOO has been the lower-risk option at 3.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCUS or MOO?

Over the 1-year period, BCUS has performed better with a 19.44% return vs 6.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCUS or MOO?

MOO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BCUS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCUS or MOO?

MOO has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 0.31% for BCUS.

What is the main difference between BCUS and MOO?

They also come from different issuers: Bancreek and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for BCUS and 0.55% for MOO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs 0.47), 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.