IAU vs. BCI
IAU (iShares Gold Trust) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while BCI is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IAU returned 18.45%/yr vs 9.82%/yr for BCI. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAU charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.26%/yr for BCI.
Performance
IAU vs. BCI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IAU achieves a -2.92% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 16.69% return.
IAU
- 1D
- -0.67%
- 1M
- -7.09%
- YTD
- -2.92%
- 6M
- -5.73%
- 1Y
- 24.19%
- 3Y*
- 29.42%
- 5Y*
- 18.45%
- 10Y*
- 11.97%
BCI
- 1D
- -0.65%
- 1M
- -8.66%
- YTD
- 16.69%
- 6M
- 16.52%
- 1Y
- 22.05%
- 3Y*
- 11.86%
- 5Y*
- 9.82%
- 10Y*
- —
IAU vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IAU iShares Gold Trust | -2.92% | 63.95% | 26.85% | 12.84% | -0.63% | -4.00% | 25.03% | 17.98% | -1.76% | 4.51% |
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 16.69% | 15.07% | 5.47% | -8.79% | 15.09% | 26.18% | -2.77% | 7.06% | -11.21% | 3.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between IAU and BCI is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2017 | 0.37 |
The correlation between IAU and BCI shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (all time) to 0.48 (3 years), 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
IAU vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank
IAU
BCI
IAU vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) 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.
| IAU | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.51 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.24 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.00 | 1.84 | -0.84 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.71 | 6.82 | -4.11 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IAU vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, which is greater than BCI's maximum drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and BCI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IAU | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.14% | -32.69% | -12.45% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.40% | -12.04% | -12.36% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.40% | -12.04% | -12.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.40% | -26.50% | +2.10% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.40% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.42% | -12.04% | -10.38% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.97% | -11.98% | -3.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.95% | 3.56% | +5.39% |
Volatility
IAU vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a higher volatility of 7.97% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 3.49%. This indicates that IAU'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IAU | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.97% | 3.49% | +4.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.16% | 14.94% | +9.22% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.36% | 17.18% | +10.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.16% | 16.79% | +1.37% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.05% | 15.65% | +0.40% |
IAU vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison
IAU has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BCI's 0.26% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
IAU vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison
IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.13%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 14.13% | 16.49% | 3.29% | 3.93% | 19.98% | 19.43% | 0.68% | 1.47% | 1.13% | 5.02% |
IAU iShares Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IAU and BCI have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IAU has higher volatility (7.97%) compared to BCI (3.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAU dropped -45.14% vs BCI's -32.69%.
On 5-year performance, IAU leads with 18.45% vs 9.82% for BCI. On fees, IAU is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 3.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IAU has performed better with a 18.45% return vs 9.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IAU is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.26% for BCI.
BCI has the higher dividend yield at 14.13%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.
IAU is categorized as Gold, while BCI is Commodities. IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price, while BCI tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IAU and 0.26% for BCI.
BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 0.89), 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 IAU and BCI
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