ZSB vs. BCI
ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZSB is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index, while BCI is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZSB returned 1.91%/yr vs 11.40%/yr for BCI. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZSB charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.26%/yr for BCI.
Performance
ZSB vs. BCI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZSB achieves a 4.41% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 15.26% return.
ZSB
- 1D
- -2.97%
- 1M
- -7.84%
- YTD
- 4.41%
- 6M
- 6.25%
- 1Y
- 59.70%
- 3Y*
- 1.91%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BCI
- 1D
- -1.23%
- 1M
- -9.78%
- YTD
- 15.26%
- 6M
- 13.54%
- 1Y
- 23.04%
- 3Y*
- 11.40%
- 5Y*
- 9.52%
- 10Y*
- —
ZSB vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund | 4.41% | 64.34% | -19.70% | -31.38% |
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 15.26% | 15.07% | 5.47% | -5.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZSB and BCI is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023 | 0.38 |
The correlation between ZSB and BCI shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.39 (3 years), 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
ZSB vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank
ZSB
BCI
ZSB vs. BCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) 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.
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.
| ZSB | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.91 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.87 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | 1.25 | +0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.58 | 1.76 | +1.82 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.56 | 6.95 | +2.60 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZSB vs. BCI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZSB drawdown since its inception was -49.26%, which is greater than BCI's maximum drawdown of -32.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZSB and BCI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZSB | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -49.26% | -32.69% | -16.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.75% | -13.12% | -3.63% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.22% | -13.12% | -30.10% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -26.50% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.97% | -13.12% | +1.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.58% | -11.99% | -18.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.27% | 3.34% | +2.93% |
Volatility
ZSB vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison
USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) has a higher volatility of 5.63% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 3.55%. This indicates that ZSB'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
| ZSB | BCI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.63% | 3.55% | +2.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.46% | 14.98% | +7.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.67% | 17.20% | +9.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.62% | 16.79% | +2.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.62% | 15.65% | +3.97% |
ZSB vs. BCI - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZSB has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than BCI's 0.26% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZSB vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison
ZSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, less than BCI's 14.30% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF | 14.30% | 16.49% | 3.29% | 3.93% | 19.98% | 19.43% | 0.68% | 1.47% | 1.13% | 5.02% |
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund | 0.88% | 0.92% | 2.96% | 3.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZSB and BCI have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ZSB has higher volatility (5.63%) compared to BCI (3.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZSB dropped -49.26% vs BCI's -32.69%.
On 3-year performance, BCI leads with 11.40% vs 1.91% for ZSB. On fees, BCI is cheaper at 0.26% per year. On volatility, BCI has been the lower-risk option at 3.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, BCI has performed better with a 11.40% return vs 1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BCI is cheaper with a 0.26% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for ZSB.
BCI has the higher dividend yield at 14.30%, compared with 0.88% for ZSB.
ZSB is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while BCI is Commodities. ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index, while BCI tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. They also come from different issuers: USCF and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ZSB and 0.26% for BCI.
ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 1.36), 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 ZSB 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