BDGS vs. GMMA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. BDGS is actively managed, while GMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, BDGS returned 10.14% vs 8.69% for GMMA. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BDGS charges 0.87%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GMMA.

Performance

BDGS vs. GMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDGS achieves a 4.35% return, which is significantly higher than GMMA's 3.33% return.

BDGS

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -0.71%
• 6M: 4.08%
• YTD: 4.35%
• 1Y: 10.14%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.11%

GMMA

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.49%
• 6M: 2.39%
• YTD: 3.33%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.68%

*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)
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	$35.83K	$93.96K	$183.58K
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	$2.91K	$2.88K	$4.62K

BDGS vs. GMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	5.56%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.33%	8.95%	0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and GMMA is 0.73, 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.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.68

The correlation between BDGS and GMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. GMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 64
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 52
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

BDGS vs. GMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). 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.

	BDGS	GMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	1.18	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	1.66	+0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.22	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	2.26	-0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.70	6.90	+1.80

BDGS vs. GMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is comparable to the GMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and GMMA, 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

BDGS vs. GMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, which is greater than GMMA's maximum drawdown of -5.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and GMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	GMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-5.21%	-3.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.76%	-3.39%	-1.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.03%	-0.68%	-1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.69%	-1.23%	+0.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.12%	1.11%	+0.01%

Volatility

BDGS vs. GMMA - Volatility Comparison

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) has a higher volatility of 3.21% compared to GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) at 2.45%. This indicates that BDGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BDGS	GMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	2.45%	+0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.11%	5.22%	+0.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.06%	6.47%	+0.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.30%	7.38%	+0.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.30%	7.38%	+0.92%

BDGS vs. GMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.87% expense ratio, which is higher than GMMA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. GMMA - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than GMMA's 3.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.45%	3.00%	0.57%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BDGS and GMMA in my portfolio?

BDGS and GMMA have a correlation of 0.73, 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 GMMA?

BDGS has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to GMMA (2.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs GMMA's -5.21%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or GMMA?

On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 10.14% vs 8.69% for GMMA. On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GMMA has been the lower-risk option at 2.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDGS or GMMA?

Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 10.14% return vs 8.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDGS or GMMA?

GMMA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.45%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between BDGS and GMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Bridges and GammaRoad. Their fees differ too: 0.87% for BDGS and 0.75% for GMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 1.18), 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.