PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ACVU vs. BGIG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ACVU vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACVU achieves a 16.39% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 14.06% return.


ACVU

1D
0.89%
1M
1.43%
6M
13.19%
YTD
16.39%
1Y
31.54%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
17.91%

BGIG

1D
0.22%
1M
1.70%
6M
10.58%
YTD
14.06%
1Y
21.92%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
16.54%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$620.51K$366.35K$236.21K
$4.13M$3.60M$4.30M

ACVU vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
ACVU
Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF
16.39%14.54%9.83%8.16%
BGIG
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF
14.06%12.49%16.84%9.81%

Correlation

The correlation between ACVU and BGIG is 0.79, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 16, 2023

0.82

The correlation between ACVU and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACVU vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ACVU
BGIG

Financial Services

20.5%
14.5%

Technology

19.0%
24.2%

Healthcare

15.0%
16.8%

Industrials

10.6%
10.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.9%
4.9%

Utilities

6.7%
7.3%

Energy

6.0%
10.0%

Consumer Defensive

5.6%
6.1%

Real Estate

3.1%
3.7%

Communication Services

2.0%
1.2%

Basic Materials

1.5%
0.6%

Financial Services

ACVU
20.5%
BGIG
14.5%

Technology

ACVU
19.0%
BGIG
24.2%

Healthcare

ACVU
15.0%
BGIG
16.8%

Industrials

ACVU
10.6%
BGIG
10.7%

Consumer Cyclical

ACVU
8.9%
BGIG
4.9%

Utilities

ACVU
6.7%
BGIG
7.3%

Energy

ACVU
6.0%
BGIG
10.0%

Consumer Defensive

ACVU
5.6%
BGIG
6.1%

Real Estate

ACVU
3.1%
BGIG
3.7%

Communication Services

ACVU
2.0%
BGIG
1.2%

Basic Materials

ACVU
1.5%
BGIG
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ACVU vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ACVU
ACVU Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
ACVU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACVU Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACVU Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
ACVU Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACVU Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

BGIG
BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ACVU vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


ACVUBGIGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.40

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.43

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.03

3.69

+0.34

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.00

14.43

+2.57

ACVU vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACVU Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACVU and BGIG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

ACVU vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACVU drawdown since its inception was -13.11%, roughly equal to the maximum BGIG drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACVU and BGIG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ACVUBGIGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.11%

-13.24%

+0.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.56%

-5.81%

-1.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.08%

+0.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.88%

-1.69%

-0.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.79%

1.48%

+0.31%

Volatility

ACVU vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU) has a higher volatility of 2.80% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.07%. This indicates that ACVU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ACVUBGIGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.80%

2.07%

+0.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.63%

6.73%

+1.90%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.31%

8.95%

+2.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.27%

11.75%

+0.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.27%

11.75%

+0.52%

ACVU vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ACVU and BGIG have an expense ratio of 0.45%.


Dividends

ACVU vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

ACVU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, which matches BGIG's 1.69% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
ACVU
Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF
1.69%1.97%3.91%2.87%
BGIG
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF
1.69%1.89%2.02%0.78%

Frequently Asked Questions


ACVU and BGIG have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ACVU has higher volatility (2.80%) compared to BGIG (2.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACVU dropped -13.11% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

On 1-year performance, ACVU leads with 31.54% vs 21.92% for BGIG. Both ETFs have the same 0.45% expense ratio. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ACVU has performed better with a 31.54% return vs 21.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ACVU and BGIG have the same expense ratio: 0.45% per year.

ACVU and BGIG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.69%.

They also come from different issuers: Hartford and Bahl & Gaynor.

ACVU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 2.40), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACVU and BGIG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer