BDCZ vs. TFNS
BDCZ (ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN) and TFNS (T. Rowe Price Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. BDCZ is passively managed, while TFNS is actively managed. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BDCZ charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for TFNS.
Performance
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BDCZ achieves a -7.98% return, which is significantly lower than TFNS's -5.36% return.
BDCZ
- 1D
- -2.73%
- 1M
- -7.44%
- YTD
- -7.98%
- 6M
- -8.99%
- 1Y
- -10.32%
- 3Y*
- 4.75%
- 5Y*
- 3.38%
- 10Y*
- 6.23%
TFNS
- 1D
- -1.39%
- 1M
- -1.27%
- YTD
- -5.36%
- 6M
- -2.12%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BDCZ ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN | -7.98% | -3.57% |
TFNS T. Rowe Price Financials ETF | -5.36% | 10.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between BDCZ and TFNS is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2025 | 0.43 |
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. TFNS — Risk / Return Rank
BDCZ
TFNS
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN (BDCZ) and T. Rowe Price Financials ETF (TFNS). 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.
| BDCZ | TFNS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.52 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.95 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BDCZ | TFNS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.51 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.27 | 0.31 | -0.04 |
Drawdowns
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BDCZ drawdown since its inception was -55.63%, which is greater than TFNS's maximum drawdown of -14.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDCZ and TFNS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BDCZ | TFNS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.63% | -14.00% | -41.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.95% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.77% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.12% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.63% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.27% | -8.00% | -9.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.86% | -3.82% | -4.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.94% | — | — |
Volatility
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BDCZ | TFNS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.37% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.17% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.42% | 15.04% | +5.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.80% | 15.04% | +2.76% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.73% | 15.04% | +6.69% |
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Expense Ratio Comparison
BDCZ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than TFNS's 0.44% expense ratio.
Dividends
BDCZ vs. TFNS - Dividend Comparison
BDCZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.28%, more than TFNS's 0.52% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BDCZ ETRACS MVIS Business Development Companies Index ETN | 11.28% | 10.65% | 9.26% | 9.13% | 9.39% | 7.49% | 10.01% | 8.40% | 9.66% | 8.74% | 7.98% |
TFNS T. Rowe Price Financials ETF | 0.52% | 0.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BDCZ and TFNS have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, TFNS is cheaper at 0.44% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
TFNS is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BDCZ.
BDCZ has the higher dividend yield at 11.28%, compared with 0.52% for TFNS.
They also come from different issuers: UBS and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BDCZ and 0.44% for TFNS.
Find the right allocation for BDCZ and TFNS
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