ACWV vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. ACWV is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ACWV returned 9.62%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

ACWV vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) 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, ACWV achieves a 1.23% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 4.21% return.

ACWV

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: -1.78%
• YTD: 1.23%
• 6M: 0.78%
• 1Y: 3.93%
• 3Y*: 9.62%
• 5Y*: 5.34%
• 10Y*: 7.32%

BDGS

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 4.21%
• 6M: 3.97%
• 1Y: 11.63%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ACWV vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.23%	11.04%	11.38%	2.77%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWV and BDGS is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.39

The correlation between ACWV and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.39 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ACWV vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWV	BDGS
Technology	25.8%	37.4%
Financial Services	13.2%	9.3%
Healthcare	13.0%	7.5%
Communication Services	11.9%	16.6%
Consumer Defensive	9.8%	4.1%
Industrials	8.1%	6.6%
Utilities	7.3%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	10.9%
Energy	3.7%	2.6%
Basic Materials	1.5%	1.5%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.5%

Return for Risk

ACWV vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 16
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 15
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 18

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 62
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

ACWV vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) 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.

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.

	ACWV	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.51	1.84	-1.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.75	2.75	-2.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.37	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.62	2.90	-2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.83	12.72	-10.89

ACWV vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWV Sharpe Ratio is 0.51, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWV 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.

Drawdowns

ACWV vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWV drawdown since its inception was -28.82%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWV and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWV	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-9.12%	-19.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.37%	-4.03%	-2.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.56%	-9.12%	+1.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.99%	-2.17%	-1.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.11%	-0.66%	-2.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	0.92%	+1.23%

Volatility

ACWV vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) is 2.11%, while Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) has a volatility of 2.30%. This indicates that ACWV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BDGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWV	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.11%	2.30%	-0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.70%	5.17%	+0.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.82%	6.38%	+1.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.22%	8.22%	+2.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.29%	8.22%	+4.07%

ACWV vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWV vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.98%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWV and BDGS in my portfolio?

ACWV and BDGS have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACWV or BDGS?

BDGS has higher volatility (2.30%) compared to ACWV (2.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWV dropped -28.82% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, ACWV or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.42% vs 9.62% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWV or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.42% return vs 9.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWV or BDGS?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.98%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between ACWV and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ACWV and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.51), 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.