BCI vs IAU: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of abrdn Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU) — 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 IAU 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 62.7 for IAU. That doesn't make IAU 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 | IAU | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Commodities | Commodities |
| Expense ratio | 0.26% | 0.25% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $3.0B | $59.7B |
| Dividend yield | 13.44% | 0.00% |
| 1-year return | +35.21% | +28.51% |
| 3-year return | +41.62% | +126.01% |
| Volatility | 17.66% | 28.22% |
| Max drawdown | -14.82% | -26.36% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.71 | 0.83 |
| ETFValuer score | 71.5 | 62.7 |
| Grade | B | C |
| Overall rank | #88 | #202 |
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
On cost, the two are essentially tied — BCI charges 0.26% a year versus IAU's 0.25%. A difference this small (about $1.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other.
What BCI's Fees Cost You
BCI charges an expense ratio of 0.26% 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, IAU returned +126.01% versus +41.62% for BCI — a gap of about 84.4 percentage points. On risk, BCI has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-14.82% vs. -26.36%). BCI currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.71 vs. 0.83), 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 IAU 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 IAU's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 18.91% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | BCI +12.15% · IAU +30.98% | IAU ahead by 18.83 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 +16.6 points ahead of IAU at the best extreme and -69.5 points at the worst — a 86.0-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…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 13.44% against 0.00%
- It has been the calmer ride (17.7% volatility vs 28.2%) 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 0.83
Lean IAU if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.25% vs 0.26%, about $1 a year less on a $10,000 position
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 126.0% over 3 years against 41.6%
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($60B 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
BCI isn't one of the twelve funds in the portfolio game, but GLD — Gold — sits in the same category and is. It is an equivalent, not a substitute: different holdings, different fee, different returns.
Free, no sign-up, virtual money only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is BCI or IAU 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 62.7 for IAU. That doesn't make IAU 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 IAU?
IAU currently has the lower expense ratio (0.25% vs. 0.26%).
Can I hold both BCI and IAU?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. BCI and IAU 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.