TBFC vs. BPH

Last updated Jun 5, 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 Oil & Gas fund actively managed by Precidian. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.18, 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: 0.08%
• 1M: 2.07%
• YTD: 5.77%
• 6M: 6.35%
• 1Y: 15.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BPH

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: —
• 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	0.42%
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	3.22%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and BPH is -0.18, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 27, 2026	-0.18

TBFC vs. BPH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TBFC	BPH
Technology	21.1%	-
Financial Services	18.0%	-
Industrials	12.7%	-
Healthcare	8.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	-
Energy	7.3%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Communication Services	6.0%	-
Basic Materials	5.7%	-
Utilities	3.8%	-
Real Estate	2.1%	-

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: 71
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

	TBFC	BPH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.86	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	TBFC	BPH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.51	9.79	-8.28

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. BPH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, which is greater than BPH's maximum drawdown of -2.35%. 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%	-2.35%	-6.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	0.00%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-0.93%	-0.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.29%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	BPH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.06%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.24%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.35%	23.51%	-17.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.14%	23.51%	-16.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.14%	23.51%	-16.37%

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 2.93%, while BPH has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.93%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and BPH in my portfolio?

TBFC and BPH have a correlation of -0.18, 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 2.93%, compared with 0.00% for BPH.

What is the main difference between TBFC and BPH?

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