GRN vs. BCD
GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) and BCD (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both Commodities funds. GRN is passively managed, while BCD is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GRN returned 9.52%/yr vs 11.98%/yr for BCD. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRN charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for BCD.
Performance
GRN vs. BCD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GRN achieves a -8.60% return, which is significantly lower than BCD's 20.45% return.
GRN
- 1D
- -0.42%
- 1M
- 8.55%
- YTD
- -8.60%
- 6M
- -4.48%
- 1Y
- 9.03%
- 3Y*
- 0.39%
- 5Y*
- 9.52%
- 10Y*
- —
BCD
- 1D
- -0.16%
- 1M
- -1.43%
- YTD
- 20.45%
- 6M
- 20.51%
- 1Y
- 31.80%
- 3Y*
- 14.44%
- 5Y*
- 11.98%
- 10Y*
- —
GRN vs. BCD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN | -8.60% | 20.33% | -7.34% | -2.99% | -0.07% | 147.21% | 30.47% | -8.41% |
BCD abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 20.45% | 15.71% | 6.20% | -7.58% | 18.38% | 31.87% | 4.76% | 4.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRN and BCD 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 11, 2019 | 0.14 |
The correlation between GRN and BCD shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (1 year) to 0.14 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
GRN vs. BCD — Risk / Return Rank
GRN
BCD
GRN vs. BCD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD). 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.
| GRN | BCD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.08 | 1.43 | -0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.30 | 4.42 | -4.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.77 | 12.57 | -11.80 |
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
| GRN | BCD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 | 2.33 | -2.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 | 0.78 | -0.54 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 0.67 | -0.26 |
Drawdowns
GRN vs. BCD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRN drawdown since its inception was -47.96%, which is greater than BCD's maximum drawdown of -29.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRN and BCD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRN | BCD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -47.96% | -29.81% | -18.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.39% | -7.22% | -23.17% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -45.30% | -10.50% | -34.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.96% | -23.03% | -24.93% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.73% | -3.60% | -16.13% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.54% | -9.86% | -7.68% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.83% | 2.54% | +9.29% |
Volatility
GRN vs. BCD - Volatility Comparison
iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) has a higher volatility of 6.65% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD) at 4.33%. This indicates that GRN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BCD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRN | BCD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.65% | 4.33% | +2.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.47% | 11.74% | +12.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.74% | 13.72% | +14.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.82% | 15.41% | +24.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.95% | 13.90% | +28.05% |
GRN vs. BCD - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRN has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than BCD's 0.29% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRN vs. BCD - Dividend Comparison
GRN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BCD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.29%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCD abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 14.29% | 17.21% | 3.60% | 4.51% | 5.21% | 8.30% | 1.29% | 1.55% | 1.59% | 0.07% |
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GRN and BCD 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.
GRN has higher volatility (6.65%) compared to BCD (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRN dropped -47.96% vs BCD's -29.81%.
On 5-year performance, BCD leads with 11.98% vs 9.52% for GRN. On fees, BCD is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, BCD has been the lower-risk option at 4.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, BCD has performed better with a 11.98% return vs 9.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BCD is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRN.
BCD has the higher dividend yield at 14.29%, compared with 0.00% for GRN.
They also come from different issuers: Barclays Capital and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRN and 0.29% for BCD.
BCD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 0.33), 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 GRN and BCD
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