BDGS vs. MOOD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and MOOD (Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BDGS returned 13.19%/yr vs 19.14%/yr for MOOD. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BDGS charges 0.87%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for MOOD.

Performance

BDGS vs. MOOD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD). 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 MOOD's 13.27% 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%

MOOD

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -0.12%
• 6M: 5.83%
• YTD: 13.27%
• 1Y: 32.12%
• 3Y*: 19.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.16%

*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
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	$594.91K	$566.29K	$735.34K

BDGS vs. MOOD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	13.27%	30.39%	12.53%	4.82%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and MOOD is 0.56, 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.	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.57

The correlation between BDGS and MOOD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

BDGS vs. MOOD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDGS	MOOD
Technology	38.9%	33.5%
Communication Services	15.1%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	9.0%
Financial Services	9.3%	12.4%
Healthcare	7.1%	9.0%
Industrials	6.8%	9.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	4.4%
Energy	2.4%	3.0%
Utilities	1.8%	2.2%
Real Estate	1.5%	2.1%
Basic Materials	1.3%	5.9%

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. MOOD — 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

MOOD

MOOD Risk / Return Rank: 84
MOOD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
MOOD Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
MOOD Omega Ratio Rank: 90
MOOD Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
MOOD 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.

BDGS vs. MOOD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD). 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	MOOD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	2.14	-0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	2.57	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.42	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	3.23	-1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.70	9.79	-1.09

BDGS vs. MOOD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is lower than the MOOD Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and MOOD, 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. MOOD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, smaller than the maximum MOOD drawdown of -14.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and MOOD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	MOOD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-14.34%	+5.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.76%	-9.71%	+4.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	-9.71%	+0.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.03%	-2.08%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.69%	-2.30%	+1.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.12%	3.20%	-2.08%

Volatility

BDGS vs. MOOD - Volatility Comparison

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

Volatility by Period

	BDGS	MOOD	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%	12.23%	-6.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.06%	14.69%	-7.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.30%	12.09%	-3.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.30%	12.09%	-3.79%

BDGS vs. MOOD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.87% expense ratio, which is higher than MOOD's 0.73% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. MOOD - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, more than MOOD's 0.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	0.36%	0.40%	1.33%	1.34%	1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BDGS and MOOD in my portfolio?

BDGS and MOOD have a correlation of 0.56, 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 MOOD?

BDGS has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to MOOD (2.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs MOOD's -14.34%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or MOOD?

On 3-year performance, MOOD leads with 19.14% vs 13.19% for BDGS. On fees, MOOD is cheaper at 0.73% per year. On volatility, MOOD 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 MOOD?

Over the 3-year period, MOOD has performed better with a 19.14% 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 MOOD?

MOOD is cheaper with a 0.73% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.36% for MOOD.

What is the main difference between BDGS and MOOD?

They also come from different issuers: Bridges and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.87% for BDGS and 0.73% for MOOD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MOOD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 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.