BCI vs GLD: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) — both Commodities funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of August 09, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
BCI and GLD compete directly — both are Commodities funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — BCI scores higher: 71.5 (Grade B) versus 61.8 for GLD. That doesn't make GLD a bad fund; it means BCI currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| BCI | GLD | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Commodities | Commodities |
| Expense ratio | 0.26% | 0.40% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $3.0B | $130.3B |
| Dividend yield | 13.44% | 0.00% |
| 1-year return | +35.21% | +28.33% |
| 3-year return | +41.62% | +125.05% |
| Volatility | 17.66% | 28.43% |
| Max drawdown | -14.82% | -26.40% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.71 | 0.82 |
| ETFValuer score | 71.5 | 61.8 |
| Grade | B | C |
| Overall rank | #88 | #216 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
BCI is the cheaper fund, charging 0.26% a year versus 0.40% for GLD — a gap of 0.14 percentage points (about $14.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What GLD's Fees Cost You
GLD charges an expense ratio of 0.40% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, GLD returned +125.05% versus +41.62% for BCI — a gap of about 83.4 percentage points. On risk, BCI has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-14.82% vs. -26.40%). BCI currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.71 vs. 0.82), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), BCI and GLD show a low correlation of 0.471 — largely independent of each other. These funds move largely on their own schedules. Combining them is a real diversification decision rather than a redundant one, which is the case where owning both can genuinely reduce portfolio volatility.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.471 | Low — largely independent of each other |
| R-squared | 22.2% | 22.2% of BCI's daily moves are explained by GLD's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 19.00% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | BCI +12.15% · GLD +30.80% | GLD ahead by 18.65 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, BCI finished as much as +16.7 points ahead of GLD at the best extreme and -69.2 points at the worst — a 85.9-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean BCI if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.26% vs 0.40%, about $14 a year less on a $10,000 position
- Current income matters to you — it yields 13.44% against 0.00%
- It has been the calmer ride (17.7% volatility vs 28.4%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-14.8% vs -26.4%)
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.71 beats 0.82
Lean GLD if…
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 125.0% over 3 years against 41.6%
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($130B in assets vs $3B)
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
See it in a portfolio
GLD is one of the twelve funds in the portfolio game. Start with 25% of a virtual $10,000 in it, build the rest however you like, and the builder shows the range this mix has actually produced over every five-day stretch of the last three years — before you commit to anything.
Free, no sign-up, virtual money only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is BCI or GLD better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — BCI scores higher: 71.5 (Grade B) versus 61.8 for GLD. That doesn't make GLD a bad fund; it means BCI currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, BCI or GLD?
BCI currently has the lower expense ratio (0.26% vs. 0.40%).
Can I hold both BCI and GLD?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. BCI and GLD correlate at only 0.47 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.