RSMV vs. BCI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RSMV (Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RSMV is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Teucrium, while BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RSMV returned 25.51% vs 37.16% for BCI. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSMV charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for BCI.

Performance

RSMV vs. BCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) 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, RSMV achieves a 9.21% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 25.35% return.

RSMV

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 6.55%
• YTD: 9.21%
• 6M: 9.78%
• 1Y: 25.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCI

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: -3.58%
• YTD: 25.35%
• 6M: 24.07%
• 1Y: 37.16%
• 3Y*: 15.51%
• 5Y*: 10.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

RSMV vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSMV Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF	9.21%	11.08%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	25.35%	10.49%

Correlation

The correlation between RSMV and BCI is -0.07, 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	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2025	0.02

RSMV vs. BCI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSMV	BCI
Technology	34.7%	-
Financial Services	33.9%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	9.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.4%	-
Communication Services	5.1%	-
Energy	5.0%	-
Utilities	2.8%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Basic Materials	2.6%	-
Healthcare	2.5%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

RSMV vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSMV

RSMV Risk / Return Rank: 68
RSMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RSMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
RSMV Omega Ratio Rank: 63
RSMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RSMV Martin Ratio Rank: 73

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 70
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

RSMV vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) 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.

	RSMV	BCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.20	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	2.81	+0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.40	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	4.90	-1.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.47	12.53	+0.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSMV vs. BCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSMV Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the BCI Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSMV 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

	RSMV	BCI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.20	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.65	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.04	0.47	+0.56

Drawdowns

RSMV vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSMV drawdown since its inception was -17.58%, smaller than the maximum BCI drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMV and BCI.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSMV	BCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.58%	-32.69%	+15.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.27%	-7.61%	+0.34%
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	-0.58%	-5.52%	+4.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.96%	-12.00%	+8.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	2.97%	-1.07%

Volatility

RSMV vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) is 4.39%, while abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) has a volatility of 5.23%. This indicates that RSMV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BCI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSMV	BCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.39%	5.23%	-0.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.67%	14.84%	-5.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.94%	16.96%	-5.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.52%	16.81%	-2.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.52%	15.65%	-1.13%

RSMV vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RSMV vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison

RSMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, less than BCI's 13.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	13.15%	16.49%	3.29%	3.93%	19.98%	19.43%	0.68%	1.47%	1.13%	5.02%
RSMV Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF	0.92%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSMV and BCI in my portfolio?

RSMV and BCI have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSMV or BCI?

BCI has higher volatility (5.23%) compared to RSMV (4.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMV dropped -17.58% vs BCI's -32.69%.

Which ETF is better, RSMV or BCI?

On 1-year performance, BCI leads with 37.16% vs 25.51% for RSMV. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, RSMV has been the lower-risk option at 4.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSMV or BCI?

Over the 1-year period, BCI has performed better with a 37.16% return vs 25.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSMV or BCI?

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

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

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.15%, compared with 0.92% for RSMV.

What is the main difference between RSMV and BCI?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.15), 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.