GLCR vs. BCI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLCR (GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLCR is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MarketVector Iceland Global Total Return Net Index, while BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. GLCR is passively managed, while BCI is actively managed. Over the past year, GLCR returned -7.32% vs 38.68% for BCI. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLCR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for BCI.

Performance

GLCR vs. BCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF (GLCR) 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, GLCR achieves a -10.49% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 26.68% return.

GLCR

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: -9.07%
• YTD: -10.49%
• 6M: -3.88%
• 1Y: -7.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCI

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -3.06%
• YTD: 26.68%
• 6M: 25.55%
• 1Y: 38.68%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 11.07%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLCR vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLCR GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF	-10.49%	8.04%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	26.68%	6.95%

Correlation

The correlation between GLCR and BCI is -0.04, 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	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2025	0.04

GLCR vs. BCI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLCR	BCI
Financial Services	32.2%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	21.2%	-
Healthcare	20.2%	-
Real Estate	7.6%	-
Industrials	6.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.8%	-
Basic Materials	5.6%	-
Communication Services	1.5%	-
Energy	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GLCR vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLCR

GLCR Risk / Return Rank: 5
GLCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
GLCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
GLCR Omega Ratio Rank: 5
GLCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
GLCR Martin Ratio Rank: 3

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 71
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

GLCR vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF (GLCR) 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.

	GLCR	BCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.45	2.30	-2.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.50	2.92	-3.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.41	-0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.44	5.10	-5.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.22	13.14	-14.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLCR vs. BCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLCR Sharpe Ratio is -0.45, which is lower than the BCI Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLCR 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLCR	BCI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.45	2.30	-2.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.15	0.48	-0.63

Drawdowns

GLCR vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCR drawdown since its inception was -16.79%, smaller than the maximum BCI drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCR and BCI.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCR	BCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.79%	-32.69%	+15.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.79%	-7.61%	-9.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.79%	-4.52%	-12.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.54%	-12.00%	+7.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.02%	2.95%	+3.07%

Volatility

GLCR vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison

GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF (GLCR) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 5.16%. This indicates that GLCR'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

	GLCR	BCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.93%	5.16%	+2.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.27%	14.80%	-1.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.40%	16.92%	-0.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.62%	16.82%	+1.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.62%	15.65%	+2.97%

GLCR vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BCI's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLCR vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison

GLCR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.08%, less than BCI's 13.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	13.01%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%
GLCR GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF	1.08%	0.97%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLCR and BCI in my portfolio?

GLCR and BCI have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLCR or BCI?

GLCR has higher volatility (7.93%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLCR dropped -16.79% vs BCI's -32.69%.

Which ETF is better, GLCR or BCI?

On 1-year performance, BCI leads with 38.68% vs -7.32% for GLCR. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 5.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLCR or BCI?

Over the 1-year period, BCI has performed better with a 38.68% return vs -7.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLCR or BCI?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLCR.

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

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 1.08% for GLCR.

What is the main difference between GLCR and BCI?

GLCR is categorized as Europe Equities, while BCI is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GLCR and 0.25% for BCI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs -0.45), 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.