ZSB vs. BCI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) and BCI (abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF) are both Commodities funds. ZSB is passively managed, while BCI is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZSB returned 5.94%/yr vs 15.96%/yr for BCI. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZSB charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for BCI.

Performance

ZSB vs. BCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) and abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZSB achieves a 11.80% return, which is significantly lower than BCI's 26.68% return.

ZSB

• 1D: -1.94%
• 1M: 1.21%
• YTD: 11.80%
• 6M: 25.71%
• 1Y: 75.67%
• 3Y*: 5.94%
• 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*: —

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

ZSB vs. BCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	11.80%	64.34%	-19.70%	-31.38%
BCI abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	26.68%	15.07%	5.47%	-6.11%

Correlation

The correlation between ZSB and BCI is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2023	0.38

The correlation between ZSB and BCI shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.39 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZSB vs. BCI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZSB	BCI
Basic Materials	90.9%	-
Industrials	8.3%	-
Technology	0.8%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ZSB vs. BCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 80
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 86
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 70

BCI

BCI Risk / Return Rank: 71
BCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BCI Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

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.

	ZSB	BCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.88	2.30	+0.59
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.28	2.92	+0.37
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.41	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.54	5.10	-0.56
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.79	13.14	-0.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZSB vs. BCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZSB Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is comparable to the BCI Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZSB and BCI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ZSB	BCI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.88	2.30	+0.59
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.02	0.48	-0.46

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZSB	BCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.26%	-32.69%	-16.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.75%	-7.61%	-9.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.22%	-11.38%	-31.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.74%	-4.52%	-1.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.95%	-12.00%	-18.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.93%	2.95%	+2.98%

Volatility

ZSB vs. BCI - Volatility Comparison

USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) has a higher volatility of 5.71% compared to abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) at 5.16%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	ZSB	BCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.71%	5.16%	+0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.65%	14.80%	+7.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.40%	16.92%	+9.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.62%	16.82%	+2.80%
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 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZSB vs. BCI - Dividend Comparison

ZSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, 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%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.82%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZSB and BCI in my portfolio?

ZSB and BCI have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZSB or BCI?

ZSB has higher volatility (5.71%) compared to BCI (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZSB dropped -49.26% vs BCI's -32.69%.

Which ETF is better, ZSB or BCI?

On 3-year performance, BCI leads with 15.96% vs 5.94% for ZSB. 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.

Which ETF has performed better, ZSB or BCI?

Over the 3-year period, BCI has performed better with a 15.96% return vs 5.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZSB or BCI?

BCI is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for ZSB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZSB or BCI?

BCI has the higher dividend yield at 13.01%, compared with 0.82% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between ZSB and BCI?

They also come from different issuers: USCF and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ZSB and 0.25% for BCI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.88 vs 2.30), 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.