ABFL vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ABFL returned 19.01%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for BDGS. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ABFL charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

ABFL vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ABFL achieves a 17.63% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.64% return.

ABFL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 6.04%
• YTD: 17.63%
• 6M: 17.18%
• 1Y: 20.72%
• 3Y*: 19.01%
• 5Y*: 12.77%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 5.64%
• 6M: 5.65%
• 1Y: 13.85%
• 3Y*: 14.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ABFL vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	17.63%	8.07%	18.26%	16.55%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between ABFL and BDGS is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.68

The correlation between ABFL and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

ABFL vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ABFL	BDGS
Technology	35.2%	37.4%
Industrials	20.9%	6.6%
Healthcare	12.5%	7.5%
Energy	7.9%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.3%	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	10.9%
Basic Materials	4.3%	1.5%
Communication Services	2.9%	16.6%
Financial Services	2.8%	9.3%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

ABFL vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ABFL

ABFL Risk / Return Rank: 45
ABFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
ABFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
ABFL Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ABFL Martin Ratio Rank: 55

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 74
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ABFL vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ABFL	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	2.29	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	3.40	-1.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.47	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	3.45	-0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.41	16.47	-7.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ABFL vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABFL and BDGS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ABFL	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.36	2.29	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	1.76	-0.97

Drawdowns

ABFL vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABFL	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.95%	-9.12%	-25.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.17%	-4.03%	-3.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.92%	-9.12%	-10.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.83%	+0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-0.64%	-4.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	0.84%	+1.37%

Volatility

ABFL vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a higher volatility of 4.48% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.14%. This indicates that ABFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BDGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ABFL	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.48%	1.14%	+3.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.70%	4.74%	+6.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.31%	6.08%	+9.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.09%	8.21%	+8.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.71%	8.21%	+10.50%

ABFL vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABFL vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	0.53%	0.62%	0.70%	0.94%	1.36%	9.63%	0.41%	0.72%	0.62%	0.40%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABFL and BDGS in my portfolio?

ABFL and BDGS have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ABFL or BDGS?

ABFL has higher volatility (4.48%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABFL dropped -34.95% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, ABFL or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, ABFL leads with 19.01% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, ABFL is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ABFL or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, ABFL has performed better with a 19.01% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABFL or BDGS?

ABFL is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ABFL or BDGS?

ABFL has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between ABFL and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Abacus and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.36), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.