ALRG vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

ALRG (Allspring LT Large Core ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ALRG is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Allspring, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ALRG returned 24.90% vs 11.29% for BDGS. Their correlation of 0.80 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ALRG charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

ALRG vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring LT Large Core ETF (ALRG) 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, ALRG achieves a 12.78% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.44% return.

ALRG

• 1D: 1.38%
• 1M: 4.35%
• 6M: 10.16%
• YTD: 12.78%
• 1Y: 24.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 24.15%

BDGS

• 1D: 1.04%
• 1M: 0.33%
• 6M: 5.03%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 1Y: 11.29%
• 3Y*: 13.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.44%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ALRG Allspring LT Large Core ETF	$16.33K	$11.23K	$10.68K
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	$54.06K	$102.41K	$187.59K

ALRG vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ALRG Allspring LT Large Core ETF	12.78%	11.78%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.44%	5.99%

Correlation

The correlation between ALRG and BDGS is 0.81, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2025	0.80

The correlation between ALRG and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

ALRG vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ALRG	BDGS
Technology	39.9%	38.9%
Financial Services	14.6%	9.3%
Industrials	11.4%	6.8%
Communication Services	10.0%	15.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	12.2%
Healthcare	7.0%	7.1%
Energy	4.3%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	3.6%
Basic Materials	0.8%	1.3%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

ALRG vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ALRG

ALRG Risk / Return Rank: 74
ALRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ALRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
ALRG Omega Ratio Rank: 72
ALRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
ALRG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 73
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

ALRG vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring LT Large Core ETF (ALRG) 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.

	ALRG	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.59	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	2.45	+0.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	2.38	+0.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.06	10.11	+0.95

ALRG vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALRG Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALRG 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

ALRG vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALRG drawdown since its inception was -9.27%, roughly equal to the maximum BDGS drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALRG and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALRG	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.27%	-9.12%	-0.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.27%	-4.76%	-4.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.01%	+1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.38%	-0.69%	-0.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.26%	1.12%	+1.14%

Volatility

ALRG vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Allspring LT Large Core ETF (ALRG) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) have volatilities of 3.47% and 3.39%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ALRG	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.47%	3.39%	+0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.12%	6.19%	+3.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.98%	7.13%	+5.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.68%	8.31%	+4.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.68%	8.31%	+4.37%

ALRG vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ALRG has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

ALRG vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

ALRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
ALRG Allspring LT Large Core ETF	0.42%	0.47%	0.00%	0.00%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ALRG and BDGS in my portfolio?

ALRG and BDGS have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ALRG or BDGS?

ALRG has higher volatility (3.47%) compared to BDGS (3.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ALRG dropped -9.27% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, ALRG or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, ALRG leads with 24.90% vs 11.29% for BDGS. On fees, ALRG is cheaper at 0.28% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ALRG or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, ALRG has performed better with a 24.90% return vs 11.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ALRG or BDGS?

ALRG is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.42% for ALRG.

What is the main difference between ALRG and BDGS?

ALRG is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Allspring and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for ALRG and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ALRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.59), 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.