BCFN vs HAP
Baron Financials ETF vs VanEck Natural Resources ETF
Which is better, BCFN or HAP?
HAP has been ahead.
HAP has a lower expense ratio. HAP led over 1Y. HAP is less concentrated, with 36.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.4%.
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 | HAP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.80% | 0.41%Best |
| AUM | - | $335M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.87% |
| Holdings | 84 | 131 |
| YTD Return | -10.79% | +21.80%Best |
| 1Y Return | - | +33.46% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +17.08% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.74% |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.4% | 36.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Baron Funds | VanEck |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 12, 2025 | Aug 29, 2008 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
BCFN vs HAP 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 HAP Performance
Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) is an ETF from Baron Funds and VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) is an ETF from VanEck. Year to date, BCFN is down 10.79% versus a gain of 21.80% for HAP.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BCFN charges 0.80% per year while HAP charges 0.41%. On a $10,000 position that is $80 vs $41 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BCFN currently yields 0.00% against 1.87% for HAP.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 40 holdings in BCFN and 134 in HAP, totalling 98.7% and 100.0% 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 134 in HAP, against full books of 84 and 131.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 52 positions for HAP that do not appear in our book for BCFN (53.7% of the fund), and 36 for BCFN that do not appear in HAP (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 HAP 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 HAP?
BCFN has an expense ratio of 0.80% while HAP charges 0.41%. HAP is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which pays a higher dividend, BCFN or HAP?
BCFN yields 0.00% while HAP yields 1.87%, so HAP currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is HAP better than BCFN?
HAP has a lower expense ratio. HAP led over 1Y. HAP is less concentrated, with 36.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.