BCFN vs CRAK
Baron Financials ETF vs VanEck Oil Refiners ETF
Which is better, BCFN or CRAK?
CRAK has been ahead.
CRAK has a lower expense ratio. CRAK led over 1Y. BCFN is less concentrated, with 45.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.8%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BCFN | CRAK |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.80% | 0.61%Best |
| AUM | - | $183M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.19% |
| Holdings | 84 | 52 |
| YTD Return | -10.79% | +79.72%Best |
| 1Y Return | - | +92.04% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +28.82% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +19.55% |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.4%Best | 59.8% |
| Fund Family | Baron Funds | VanEck |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 12, 2025 | Aug 18, 2015 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
BCFN vs CRAK growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BCFN vs CRAK Performance
Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) is an ETF from Baron Funds and VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK) is an ETF from VanEck. Year to date, BCFN is down 10.79% versus a gain of 79.72% for CRAK.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BCFN charges 0.80% per year while CRAK charges 0.61%. On a $10,000 position that is $80 vs $61 annually, a gap of $19 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCFN currently yields 0.00% against 1.19% for CRAK.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 40 holdings in BCFN and 26 in CRAK, totalling 98.7% and 99.9% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in BCFN and 26 in CRAK, against full books of 84 and 52.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for CRAK that do not appear in our book for BCFN (35.4% of the fund), and 36 for BCFN that do not appear in CRAK (89.4%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BCFN and CRAK you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BCFN or CRAK?
BCFN has an expense ratio of 0.80% while CRAK charges 0.61%. CRAK is the cheaper option, by $19 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCFN or CRAK?
BCFN yields 0.00% while CRAK yields 1.19%, so CRAK currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is CRAK better than BCFN?
CRAK has a lower expense ratio. CRAK led over 1Y. BCFN is less concentrated, with 45.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.