TBFC vs. BPH

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and BPH (BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TBFC is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Brinsmere, while BPH is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Precidian. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for BPH.

Performance

TBFC vs. BPH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

TBFC

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: -0.39%
• YTD: 4.92%
• 6M: 4.48%
• 1Y: 13.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BPH

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -9.18%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. BPH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	0.33%
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	-8.99%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and BPH is -0.01, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2026	-0.01

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. BPH — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 63
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

BPH

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

TBFC vs. BPH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH). 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.

	TBFC	BPH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.67	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.39	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.86	—	—

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. BPH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, smaller than the maximum BPH drawdown of -12.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and BPH.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	BPH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-12.06%	+3.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	-12.06%	+11.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-3.99%	+2.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.32%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	BPH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.96%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.85%	25.57%	-18.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.28%	25.57%	-18.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.28%	25.57%	-18.29%

TBFC vs. BPH - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than BPH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. BPH - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.01%, more than BPH's 0.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	0.55%	0.00%	0.00%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	3.01%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and BPH in my portfolio?

TBFC and BPH have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or BPH?

On fees, BPH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or BPH?

BPH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TBFC or BPH?

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 0.55% for BPH.

What is the main difference between TBFC and BPH?

TBFC is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while BPH is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and Precidian. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.19% for BPH.