BDGS vs. AMZP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and AMZP (Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges, while AMZP is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Kurv. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BDGS returned 14.42% vs 23.84% for AMZP. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BDGS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for AMZP.

Performance

BDGS vs. AMZP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDGS achieves a 5.94% return, which is significantly lower than AMZP's 8.22% return.

BDGS

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.49%
• YTD: 5.94%
• 6M: 5.90%
• 1Y: 14.42%
• 3Y*: 14.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AMZP

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: -5.00%
• YTD: 8.22%
• 6M: 7.97%
• 1Y: 23.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BDGS vs. AMZP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.94%	10.61%	19.07%	5.16%
AMZP Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF	8.22%	9.56%	37.42%	7.73%

Correlation

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

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. AMZP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 78
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 82
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

AMZP

AMZP Risk / Return Rank: 23
AMZP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
AMZP Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
AMZP Omega Ratio Rank: 24
AMZP Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
AMZP Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

BDGS vs. AMZP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	BDGS	AMZP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	0.83	+1.56
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	1.28	+2.26
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.16	+0.34
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.67	1.05	+2.62
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.59	2.71	+14.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BDGS vs. AMZP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is higher than the AMZP Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and AMZP, 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

	BDGS	AMZP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.39	0.83	+1.56
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.77	0.92	+0.85

Drawdowns

BDGS vs. AMZP - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	AMZP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-27.36%	+18.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-23.64%	+19.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	-7.65%	+7.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.64%	-6.02%	+5.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.84%	9.15%	-8.31%

Volatility

BDGS vs. AMZP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) is 1.09%, while Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) has a volatility of 8.11%. This indicates that BDGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMZP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BDGS	AMZP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.09%	8.11%	-7.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.73%	22.00%	-17.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.08%	28.99%	-22.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.21%	26.81%	-18.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.21%	26.81%	-18.60%

BDGS vs. AMZP - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BDGS vs. AMZP - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than AMZP's 19.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
AMZP Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF	19.00%	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 BDGS and AMZP in my portfolio?

BDGS and AMZP 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, BDGS or AMZP?

AMZP has higher volatility (8.11%) compared to BDGS (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs AMZP's -27.36%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or AMZP?

On 1-year performance, AMZP leads with 23.84% vs 14.42% for BDGS. On fees, BDGS is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDGS or AMZP?

Over the 1-year period, AMZP has performed better with a 23.84% return vs 14.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDGS or AMZP?

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

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

AMZP has the higher dividend yield at 19.00%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between BDGS and AMZP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 0.83), 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.