CTWO vs. BCI

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CTWO (COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both Commodities funds. Over the past year, CTWO returned 1.48% vs 23.04% for BCI. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CTWO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.26%/yr for BCI.

Performance

CTWO vs. BCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CTWO achieves a -13.60% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 15.26% return.

CTWO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.18%
• YTD: -13.60%
• 6M: -12.94%
• 1Y: 1.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCI

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: -9.78%
• YTD: 15.26%
• 6M: 13.54%
• 1Y: 23.04%
• 3Y*: 11.40%
• 5Y*: 9.52%
• 10Y*: —

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

CTWO vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CTWO COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust	-13.60%	4.42%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	15.26%	4.35%

Correlation

The correlation between CTWO and BCI is 0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2025	0.03

Return for Risk

CTWO vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

CTWO

CTWO Risk / Return Rank: 10
CTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 9

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 39
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 39
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

CTWO vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI). 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.

	CTWO	BCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.05	1.36	-1.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.26	1.84	-1.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.25	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.05	1.76	-1.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.10	6.95	-6.85

CTWO vs. BCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTWO Sharpe Ratio is 0.05, which is lower than the BCI Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTWO and BCI, 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

CTWO vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CTWO drawdown since its inception was -30.13%, smaller than the maximum BCI drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTWO and BCI.

Drawdown Indicators

	CTWO	BCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.13%	-32.69%	+2.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.13%	-13.12%	-17.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.12%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.44%	-13.12%	-10.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.57%	-11.99%	-0.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.60%	3.34%	+11.26%

Volatility

CTWO vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison

COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) has a higher volatility of 8.27% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 3.55%. This indicates that CTWO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BCI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CTWO	BCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	3.55%	+4.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.34%	14.98%	+9.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.61%	17.20%	+10.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.25%	16.79%	+12.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.25%	15.65%	+13.60%

CTWO vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison

CTWO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than BCI's 0.26% expense ratio.

Dividends

CTWO vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison

CTWO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.30%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	14.30%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%
CTWO COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CTWO and BCI in my portfolio?

CTWO and BCI have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CTWO or BCI?

CTWO has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to BCI (3.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CTWO dropped -30.13% vs BCI's -32.69%.

Which ETF is better, CTWO or BCI?

On 1-year performance, BCI leads with 23.04% vs 1.48% for CTWO. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.26% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 3.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CTWO or BCI?

Over the 1-year period, BCI has performed better with a 23.04% return vs 1.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CTWO or BCI?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.26% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for CTWO.

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

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 14.30%, compared with 0.00% for CTWO.

What is the main difference between CTWO and BCI?

They also come from different issuers: COtwo Advisors and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for CTWO and 0.26% for BCI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.05), 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.