RMCA vs. BESF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) and BESF (Bastion Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Rockefeller, while BESF is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Bastion. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMCA returned 7.55% vs 56.15% for BESF. At a correlation of -0.21, they often move in opposite directions. RMCA charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for BESF.

Performance

RMCA vs. BESF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and Bastion Energy ETF (BESF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMCA achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than BESF's 14.96% return.

RMCA

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 3.16%
• 1Y: 7.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BESF

• 1D: 1.49%
• 1M: -7.22%
• YTD: 14.96%
• 6M: 14.44%
• 1Y: 56.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMCA vs. BESF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.87%	5.02%
BESF Bastion Energy ETF	14.96%	38.76%

Correlation

The correlation between RMCA and BESF is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	-0.21

Return for Risk

RMCA vs. BESF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 70
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

BESF

BESF Risk / Return Rank: 75
BESF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
BESF Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
BESF Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BESF Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BESF Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

RMCA vs. BESF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and Bastion Energy ETF (BESF). 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.

	RMCA	BESF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.28	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.18	3.08	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.37	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	5.14	-1.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.74	14.33	-3.59

RMCA vs. BESF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the BESF Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMCA and BESF, 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

RMCA vs. BESF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMCA drawdown since its inception was -5.95%, smaller than the maximum BESF drawdown of -10.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMCA and BESF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMCA	BESF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-10.97%	+5.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.35%	-10.97%	+8.62%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-9.64%	+9.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.59%	-2.72%	+1.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.70%	3.93%	-3.23%

Volatility

RMCA vs. BESF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) is 0.86%, while Bastion Energy ETF (BESF) has a volatility of 6.87%. This indicates that RMCA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BESF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMCA	BESF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	6.87%	-6.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.47%	14.94%	-12.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.62%	24.78%	-21.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.33%	24.42%	-19.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.33%	24.42%	-19.09%

RMCA vs. BESF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMCA has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than BESF's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMCA vs. BESF - Dividend Comparison

RMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.33%, less than BESF's 5.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BESF Bastion Energy ETF	5.92%	6.39%	0.00%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.33%	4.51%	1.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMCA and BESF in my portfolio?

RMCA and BESF have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RMCA or BESF?

BESF has higher volatility (6.87%) compared to RMCA (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMCA dropped -5.95% vs BESF's -10.97%.

Which ETF is better, RMCA or BESF?

On 1-year performance, BESF leads with 56.15% vs 7.55% for RMCA. On fees, RMCA is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, RMCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMCA or BESF?

Over the 1-year period, BESF has performed better with a 56.15% return vs 7.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMCA or BESF?

RMCA is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BESF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RMCA or BESF?

BESF has the higher dividend yield at 5.92%, compared with 4.33% for RMCA.

What is the main difference between RMCA and BESF?

RMCA is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BESF is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Rockefeller and Bastion. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for RMCA and 0.80% for BESF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BESF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.10), 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.