AMZP vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AMZP (Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMZP is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Kurv, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AMZP returned 20.81% vs 13.85% for BDGS. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AMZP charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

AMZP vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) 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, AMZP achieves a 5.27% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 5.64% return.

AMZP

• 1D: -2.73%
• 1M: -8.93%
• YTD: 5.27%
• 6M: 5.85%
• 1Y: 20.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

AMZP vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AMZP Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF	5.27%	9.56%	37.42%	7.73%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	5.16%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZP and BDGS is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2023	0.60

The correlation between AMZP and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AMZP vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMZP

AMZP Risk / Return Rank: 21
AMZP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
AMZP Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
AMZP Omega Ratio Rank: 22
AMZP Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
AMZP Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

AMZP vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) 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.

	AMZP	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	2.29	-1.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.15	3.40	-2.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.47	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.88	3.45	-2.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.27	16.47	-14.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMZP vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZP Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZP 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

	AMZP	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72	2.29	-1.57
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	1.76	-0.89

Drawdowns

AMZP vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZP drawdown since its inception was -27.36%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZP and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZP	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.36%	-9.12%	-18.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.64%	-4.03%	-19.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.17%	-0.83%	-9.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.02%	-0.64%	-5.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.17%	0.84%	+8.33%

Volatility

AMZP vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) has a higher volatility of 8.28% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.14%. This indicates that AMZP'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

	AMZP	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.28%	1.14%	+7.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.18%	4.74%	+17.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.12%	6.08%	+23.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.85%	8.21%	+18.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.85%	8.21%	+18.64%

AMZP vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMZP has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than BDGS's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMZP vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

AMZP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.53%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
AMZP Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF	19.53%	22.04%	15.15%	2.45%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMZP and BDGS in my portfolio?

AMZP and BDGS have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMZP or BDGS?

AMZP has higher volatility (8.28%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZP dropped -27.36% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, AMZP or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, AMZP leads with 20.81% vs 13.85% for BDGS. On fees, BDGS is cheaper at 0.85% 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, AMZP or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, AMZP has performed better with a 20.81% return vs 13.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZP or BDGS?

BDGS is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AMZP.

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

AMZP has the higher dividend yield at 19.53%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between AMZP and BDGS?

AMZP is categorized as Options Trading, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Kurv and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AMZP and 0.85% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 0.72), 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.