BDGS vs. MODL

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and MODL (Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges, while MODL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Victory. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BDGS returned 13.19%/yr vs 18.29%/yr for MODL. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BDGS charges 0.87%/yr vs 0.46%/yr for MODL.

Performance

BDGS vs. MODL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF (MODL). 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 lower than MODL's 7.88% 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%

MODL

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: -0.44%
• 6M: 7.19%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 1Y: 19.08%
• 3Y*: 18.29%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.70%

*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
MODL Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF	$1.69M	$2.90M	$3.17M

BDGS vs. MODL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%
MODL Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF	7.88%	18.99%	24.73%	12.23%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and MODL is 0.78, 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.	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.76

The correlation between BDGS and MODL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

BDGS vs. MODL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDGS	MODL
Technology	38.9%	32.3%
Communication Services	15.1%	9.7%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	4.9%
Financial Services	9.3%	20.2%
Healthcare	7.1%	18.3%
Industrials	6.8%	4.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	0.0%
Energy	2.4%	0.0%
Utilities	1.8%	5.0%
Real Estate	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	1.3%	4.6%

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. MODL — 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

MODL

MODL Risk / Return Rank: 60
MODL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
MODL Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
MODL Omega Ratio Rank: 60
MODL Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
MODL Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. MODL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF (MODL). 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	MODL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	1.47	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	2.09	+0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.26	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	1.84	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.70	8.00	+0.70

BDGS vs. MODL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is comparable to the MODL Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and MODL, 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. MODL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, smaller than the maximum MODL drawdown of -17.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and MODL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	MODL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-17.60%	+8.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.76%	-9.46%	+4.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	-17.60%	+8.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.03%	-1.20%	-0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.69%	-2.00%	+1.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.12%	2.18%	-1.06%

Volatility

BDGS vs. MODL - Volatility Comparison

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF (MODL) have volatilities of 3.21% and 3.09%, 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

	BDGS	MODL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	3.09%	+0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.11%	9.32%	-3.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.06%	11.88%	-4.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.30%	14.53%	-6.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.30%	14.53%	-6.23%

BDGS vs. MODL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.87% expense ratio, which is higher than MODL's 0.46% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. MODL - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than MODL's 0.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%
MODL Victoryshares Westend U.S. Sector ETF	0.70%	0.67%	0.83%	1.02%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BDGS and MODL in my portfolio?

BDGS and MODL have a correlation of 0.78, 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 MODL?

BDGS has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to MODL (3.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs MODL's -17.60%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or MODL?

On 3-year performance, MODL leads with 18.29% vs 13.19% for BDGS. On fees, MODL is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, MODL has been the lower-risk option at 3.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDGS or MODL?

Over the 3-year period, MODL has performed better with a 18.29% return vs 13.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDGS or MODL?

MODL is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

MODL has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between BDGS and MODL?

BDGS is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while MODL is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Bridges and Victory. Their fees differ too: 0.87% for BDGS and 0.46% for MODL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MODL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 vs 1.38), 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.