FDIQ vs. BCFN
FDIQ (Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF) and BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - FDIQ tracks the Bloomberg Financial Data Providers Index while BCFN tracks the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDIQ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for BCFN.
Performance
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FDIQ achieves a 9.72% return, which is significantly higher than BCFN's -17.02% return.
FDIQ
- 1D
- -0.97%
- 1M
- -5.53%
- YTD
- 9.72%
- 6M
- 10.28%
- 1Y
- 22.98%
- 3Y*
- 18.27%
- 5Y*
- 3.82%
- 10Y*
- 7.60%
BCFN
- 1D
- -2.00%
- 1M
- -4.60%
- YTD
- -17.02%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FDIQ Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF | 9.72% | -3.33% |
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -17.02% | 0.35% |
Correlation
The correlation between FDIQ and BCFN is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2025 | 0.70 |
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
FDIQ vs. BCFN — Risk / Return Rank
FDIQ
BCFN
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF (FDIQ) and Baron Financials ETF (BCFN). 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.
| FDIQ | BCFN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.07 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.26 | — | — |
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
| FDIQ | BCFN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.04 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.13 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.24 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.37 | -1.70 | +2.07 |
Drawdowns
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FDIQ drawdown since its inception was -52.86%, which is greater than BCFN's maximum drawdown of -20.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIQ and BCFN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FDIQ | BCFN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.86% | -20.95% | -31.91% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.09% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -42.99% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -52.86% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.53% | -19.09% | +10.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.56% | -12.17% | +0.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.38% | — | — |
Volatility
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FDIQ | BCFN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.06% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.93% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.14% | 19.41% | +2.73% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.70% | 19.41% | +9.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.12% | 19.41% | +11.71% |
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Expense Ratio Comparison
FDIQ has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BCFN's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
FDIQ vs. BCFN - Dividend Comparison
FDIQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.56%, while BCFN has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FDIQ Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF | 2.56% | 2.66% | 2.69% | 2.89% | 2.51% | 2.04% | 2.92% | 2.44% | 2.45% | 1.59% | 1.50% | 1.92% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FDIQ and BCFN have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FDIQ is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FDIQ is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCFN.
FDIQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.56%, compared with 0.00% for BCFN.
FDIQ tracks Bloomberg Financial Data Providers Index, while BCFN tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Baron Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FDIQ and 0.80% for BCFN.
Find the right allocation for FDIQ and BCFN
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