RWEM vs. BCI
RWEM (Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the FT Wilshire Emerging Large NxtGen Index, while BCI is a Commodities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. RWEM is passively managed, while BCI is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RWEM returned 25.41%/yr vs 15.96%/yr for BCI. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RWEM charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for BCI.
Performance
RWEM vs. BCI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with RWEM having a 26.61% return and BCI slightly higher at 26.68%.
RWEM
- 1D
- 1.08%
- 1M
- 12.70%
- YTD
- 26.61%
- 6M
- 37.26%
- 1Y
- 56.82%
- 3Y*
- 25.41%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BCI
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -3.06%
- YTD
- 26.68%
- 6M
- 25.55%
- 1Y
- 38.68%
- 3Y*
- 15.96%
- 5Y*
- 11.07%
- 10Y*
- —
RWEM vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF | 26.61% | 28.17% | 7.24% | 21.56% | -20.11% | 0.42% |
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 26.68% | 15.07% | 5.47% | -8.79% | 15.09% | 2.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWEM and BCI is -0.06, 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 | -0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 17, 2021 | 0.21 |
The correlation between RWEM and BCI shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.21 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
RWEM vs. BCI - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RWEM
BCI
Technology
-
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Industrials
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
Healthcare
-
Technology
RWEM
BCI
-
Financial Services
RWEM
BCI
Basic Materials
RWEM
BCI
-
Industrials
RWEM
BCI
-
Consumer Cyclical
RWEM
BCI
-
Communication Services
RWEM
BCI
-
Consumer Defensive
RWEM
BCI
-
Energy
RWEM
BCI
-
Utilities
RWEM
BCI
-
Real Estate
RWEM
BCI
-
Healthcare
RWEM
BCI
-
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
RWEM vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank
RWEM
BCI
RWEM vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) 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.
| RWEM | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.50 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.41 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.71 | 5.10 | -1.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.99 | 13.14 | -1.15 |
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
| RWEM | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.79 | 2.30 | -0.50 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.66 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.59 | 0.48 | +0.11 |
Drawdowns
RWEM vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWEM drawdown since its inception was -26.92%, smaller than the maximum BCI drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWEM and BCI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWEM | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.92% | -32.69% | +5.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.39% | -7.61% | -7.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.56% | -11.38% | -11.18% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -26.50% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -4.52% | +4.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.64% | -12.00% | +2.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.75% | 2.95% | +1.80% |
Volatility
RWEM vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison
Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) has a higher volatility of 8.57% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 5.16%. This indicates that RWEM'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
| RWEM | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.57% | 5.16% | +3.41% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.47% | 14.80% | +14.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.82% | 16.92% | +14.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.36% | 16.82% | +4.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.36% | 15.65% | +5.71% |
RWEM vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison
RWEM has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is higher than BCI's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
RWEM vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison
RWEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than BCI's 13.01% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 13.01% | 16.49% | 3.29% | 3.93% | 19.98% | 19.43% | 0.68% | 1.47% | 1.13% | 5.02% |
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF | 1.70% | 2.15% | 3.59% | 1.60% | 5.59% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWEM and BCI have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RWEM has higher volatility (8.57%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWEM dropped -26.92% vs BCI's -32.69%.
On 3-year performance, RWEM leads with 25.41% vs 15.96% for BCI. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 5.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, RWEM has performed better with a 25.41% return vs 15.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RWEM.
BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 1.70% for RWEM.
RWEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BCI is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RWEM and 0.25% for BCI.
BCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.79), 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 RWEM 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