NVIR vs. BCDF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NVIR (Horizon Kinetics Energy Remediation ETF) and BCDF (Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NVIR is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Horizon, while BCDF is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Horizon. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, NVIR returned 18.14%/yr vs 14.27%/yr for BCDF. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

NVIR vs. BCDF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Horizon Kinetics Energy Remediation ETF (NVIR) and Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF (BCDF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NVIR achieves a 16.27% return, which is significantly higher than BCDF's -0.20% return.

NVIR

• 1D: 1.46%
• 1M: -6.37%
• YTD: 16.27%
• 6M: 16.60%
• 1Y: 25.22%
• 3Y*: 18.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCDF

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -10.70%
• YTD: -0.20%
• 6M: -0.65%
• 1Y: 2.52%
• 3Y*: 14.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NVIR vs. BCDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NVIR Horizon Kinetics Energy Remediation ETF	16.27%	9.84%	17.53%	5.23%
BCDF Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF	-0.20%	11.63%	14.87%	17.17%

Correlation

The correlation between NVIR and BCDF is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2023	0.41

The correlation between NVIR and BCDF shifts across timeframes, from 0.23 (1 year) to 0.41 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NVIR vs. BCDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NVIR

NVIR Risk / Return Rank: 48
NVIR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
NVIR Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
NVIR Omega Ratio Rank: 42
NVIR Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
NVIR Martin Ratio Rank: 53

BCDF

BCDF Risk / Return Rank: 10
BCDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
BCDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
BCDF Omega Ratio Rank: 10
BCDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
BCDF Martin Ratio Rank: 11

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.

NVIR vs. BCDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Horizon Kinetics Energy Remediation ETF (NVIR) and Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF (BCDF). 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.

	NVIR	BCDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	0.17	+1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.06	0.34	+1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.04	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.79	0.24	+2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.99	0.66	+8.33

NVIR vs. BCDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVIR Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is higher than the BCDF Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVIR and BCDF, 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

NVIR vs. BCDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVIR drawdown since its inception was -22.47%, smaller than the maximum BCDF drawdown of -27.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVIR and BCDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVIR	BCDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.47%	-27.70%	+5.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.09%	-10.70%	+1.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.47%	-13.46%	-9.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.77%	-10.70%	+2.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.60%	-9.80%	+5.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.82%	3.81%	-0.99%

Volatility

NVIR vs. BCDF - Volatility Comparison

Horizon Kinetics Energy Remediation ETF (NVIR) has a higher volatility of 6.20% compared to Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF (BCDF) at 5.90%. This indicates that NVIR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BCDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVIR	BCDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.20%	5.90%	+0.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.78%	11.42%	+1.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.66%	15.16%	+1.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.33%	16.95%	+2.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.33%	16.95%	+2.38%

NVIR vs. BCDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NVIR and BCDF have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

NVIR vs. BCDF - Dividend Comparison

NVIR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.79%, less than BCDF's 2.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BCDF Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF	2.53%	2.53%	1.63%	0.69%	0.38%
NVIR Horizon Kinetics Energy Remediation ETF	0.79%	0.92%	1.50%	1.34%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVIR and BCDF in my portfolio?

NVIR and BCDF have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NVIR or BCDF?

NVIR has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to BCDF (5.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVIR dropped -22.47% vs BCDF's -27.70%.

Which ETF is better, NVIR or BCDF?

On 3-year performance, NVIR leads with 18.14% vs 14.27% for BCDF. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, BCDF has been the lower-risk option at 5.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NVIR or BCDF?

Over the 3-year period, NVIR has performed better with a 18.14% return vs 14.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVIR or BCDF?

NVIR and BCDF have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NVIR or BCDF?

BCDF has the higher dividend yield at 2.53%, compared with 0.79% for NVIR.

What is the main difference between NVIR and BCDF?

NVIR is categorized as Energy Equities, while BCDF is Cryptocurrency.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NVIR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.52 vs 0.17), 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.