BDCZ vs. CEFD
BDCZ (ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN) and CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - BDCZ is a Financials Equities fund tracking the BDCZ-US - MVIS US Business Development Companies Index, while CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BDCZ returned 3.29%/yr vs 2.85%/yr for CEFD. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BDCZ charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for CEFD.
Performance
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BDCZ achieves a -8.73% return, which is significantly lower than CEFD's 5.55% return.
BDCZ
- 1D
- 0.45%
- 1M
- -0.80%
- YTD
- -8.73%
- 6M
- -6.81%
- 1Y
- -10.27%
- 3Y*
- 4.71%
- 5Y*
- 3.29%
- 10Y*
- 6.05%
CEFD
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- 0.88%
- YTD
- 5.55%
- 6M
- 5.82%
- 1Y
- 16.51%
- 3Y*
- 14.99%
- 5Y*
- 2.85%
- 10Y*
- —
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BDCZ ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN | -8.73% | -3.72% | 12.22% | 25.31% | -9.12% | 33.97% | 19.94% |
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 5.55% | 14.15% | 20.06% | 8.36% | -28.93% | 22.09% | 23.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between BDCZ and CEFD is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2020 | 0.57 |
Over the past year, the correlation between BDCZ and CEFD has dropped to 0.36 - well below their long-term average of 0.57, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
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
BDCZ vs. CEFD — Risk / Return Rank
BDCZ
CEFD
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN (BDCZ) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). 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.
| BDCZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.75 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.36 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 1.25 | -0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.52 | 1.33 | -1.84 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.89 | 6.09 | -6.98 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BDCZ drawdown since its inception was -55.63%, which is greater than CEFD's maximum drawdown of -36.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDCZ and CEFD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BDCZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.63% | -36.95% | -18.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.95% | -12.51% | -7.44% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.77% | -21.76% | +0.99% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.12% | -36.95% | +13.83% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.63% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.94% | -1.80% | -16.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.90% | -11.63% | +3.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.51% | 2.72% | +8.79% |
Volatility
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN (BDCZ) has a higher volatility of 8.44% compared to ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) at 4.13%. This indicates that BDCZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BDCZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.44% | 4.13% | +4.31% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.35% | 11.71% | +5.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.62% | 13.28% | +7.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.81% | 17.99% | -0.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.76% | 17.30% | +4.46% |
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Expense Ratio Comparison
BDCZ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFD's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
BDCZ vs. CEFD - Dividend Comparison
BDCZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.37%, less than CEFD's 14.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BDCZ ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN | 11.37% | 10.65% | 9.26% | 9.13% | 9.39% | 7.49% | 10.01% | 8.40% | 9.66% | 8.74% | 7.98% |
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 14.84% | 14.88% | 13.90% | 14.76% | 16.56% | 10.31% | 5.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BDCZ and CEFD have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BDCZ has higher volatility (8.44%) compared to CEFD (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDCZ dropped -55.63% vs CEFD's -36.95%.
On 5-year performance, BDCZ leads with 3.29% vs 2.85% for CEFD. On fees, BDCZ is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, BDCZ has performed better with a 3.29% return vs 2.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BDCZ is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for CEFD.
CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.84%, compared with 11.37% for BDCZ.
BDCZ tracks BDCZ-US - MVIS US Business Development Companies Index, while CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BDCZ and 0.95% for CEFD.
CEFD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs -0.50), 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 BDCZ and CEFD
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