PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XYLG vs. BCD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XYLG vs. BCD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XYLG achieves a 8.91% return, which is significantly lower than BCD's 13.57% return.


XYLG

1D
0.28%
1M
1.94%
6M
7.47%
YTD
8.91%
1Y
19.85%
3Y*
16.17%
5Y*
10.32%
10Y*

BCD

1D
-0.07%
1M
-1.21%
6M
10.98%
YTD
13.57%
1Y
21.88%
3Y*
11.12%
5Y*
10.85%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XYLG vs. BCD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XYLG
Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF
8.91%12.93%22.31%18.16%-15.46%23.81%12.13%
BCD
abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF
13.57%15.71%6.20%-7.58%18.38%31.87%8.44%

Correlation

The correlation between XYLG and BCD is 0.00, 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

0.00

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.10

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2020

0.20

The correlation between XYLG and BCD shifts across timeframes, from 0.00 (1 year) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

XYLG vs. BCD — Risk / Return Rank

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

XYLG
XYLG Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
XYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
XYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
XYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
XYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank

BCD
BCD Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
BCD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BCD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
BCD Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
BCD Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
BCD Martin Ratio Rank: 4747
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XYLG vs. BCD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD). 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.


XYLGBCDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.63

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.29

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.85

1.79

+1.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.80

6.21

+7.60

XYLG vs. BCD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XYLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is comparable to the BCD Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XYLG and BCD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

XYLG vs. BCD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XYLG drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, smaller than the maximum BCD drawdown of -29.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XYLG and BCD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XYLGBCDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.30%

-29.81%

+8.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.93%

-12.70%

+5.77%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.42%

-12.70%

-4.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.30%

-23.03%

+1.73%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-9.11%

+9.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.05%

-9.85%

+5.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.43%

3.64%

-2.21%

Volatility

XYLG vs. BCD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) is 3.15%, while abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD) has a volatility of 4.04%. This indicates that XYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BCD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XYLGBCDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.15%

4.04%

-0.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.22%

11.94%

-3.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.95%

14.07%

-4.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.07%

15.38%

-1.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.82%

13.91%

-0.09%

XYLG vs. BCD - Expense Ratio Comparison

XYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than BCD's 0.29% expense ratio.


Dividends

XYLG vs. BCD - Dividend Comparison

XYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.94%, less than BCD's 15.16% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
BCD
abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF
15.16%17.21%3.60%4.51%5.21%8.30%1.29%1.55%1.59%0.07%
XYLG
Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF
12.94%13.94%23.65%4.90%6.43%7.40%1.39%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


XYLG and BCD have a correlation of 0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BCD has higher volatility (4.04%) compared to XYLG (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XYLG dropped -21.30% vs BCD's -29.81%.

On 5-year performance, BCD leads with 10.85% vs 10.32% for XYLG. On fees, BCD is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, XYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BCD has performed better with a 10.85% return vs 10.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BCD is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for XYLG.

BCD has the higher dividend yield at 15.16%, compared with 12.94% for XYLG.

XYLG is categorized as Derivative Income, while BCD is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for XYLG and 0.29% for BCD.

XYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.61), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XYLG and BCD

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