BFC vs BNB
BFC (BFC) and BNB (BNB) compared side by side. Over the past 1 year, BNB is ahead by 4.1 percentage points (BFC -23.6% against BNB -19.6%). Their daily returns move barely together (correlation 0.06 across 399 shared trading days). BFC has been the more volatile of the two, at 229% annualised against BNB's 51%.
Performance
| Period | BFC | BNB | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 days | -5.90% | +0.82% | BNB |
| 30 days | +164.00% | +12.64% | BFC |
| 90 days | +140.64% | +39.21% | BFC |
| 1 year | -23.63% | -19.57% | BNB |
Risk & extremes
| Metric | BFC | BNB |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (400d) | -79.8% | -58.2% |
| Risk-adjusted return (90d) | 0.30 | 1.13 |
| Best 30 days (past year) | +288.7% | +29.4% |
| Worst 30 days (past year) | -37.5% | -34.9% |
Relative strength over 90 days: BFC outperformed BNB by 79.0% — measured on the BFC/BNB ratio, so it holds regardless of market direction.
Correlation
0.06over 399 shared trading days
7d: insufficient data30d: -0.1790d: -0.101y: 0.06
Measured on daily returns rather than on prices. Two assets that both simply trend upward score near 1.0 on raw prices whether or not they move together, so returns are what answer the question people mean by correlation.