BDGS vs. NACP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and NACP (Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges, while NACP is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Minority Empowerment Index. BDGS is actively managed, while NACP is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BDGS returned 13.42%/yr vs 25.74%/yr for NACP. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BDGS charges 0.87%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for NACP.

Performance

BDGS vs. NACP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDGS achieves a 4.21% return, which is significantly lower than NACP's 20.21% return.

BDGS

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 4.21%
• 6M: 3.97%
• 1Y: 11.63%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NACP

• 1D: -2.21%
• 1M: 1.73%
• YTD: 20.21%
• 6M: 17.87%
• 1Y: 39.41%
• 3Y*: 25.74%
• 5Y*: 15.31%
• 10Y*: —

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

BDGS vs. NACP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%
NACP Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF	20.21%	21.38%	23.93%	17.79%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and NACP is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.76

The correlation between BDGS and NACP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

BDGS vs. NACP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDGS	NACP
Technology	37.4%	41.3%
Communication Services	16.6%	9.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	10.9%
Financial Services	9.3%	9.5%
Healthcare	7.5%	8.5%
Industrials	6.6%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	3.1%
Energy	2.6%	4.3%
Utilities	1.9%	3.0%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.5%	1.4%

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. NACP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 62
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

NACP

NACP Risk / Return Rank: 84
NACP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
NACP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
NACP Omega Ratio Rank: 82
NACP Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
NACP Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. NACP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP). 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	NACP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.84	2.60	-0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	3.39	-0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.45	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	4.10	-1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.72	17.54	-4.82

BDGS vs. NACP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is comparable to the NACP Sharpe Ratio of 2.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and NACP, 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. NACP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, smaller than the maximum NACP drawdown of -30.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and NACP.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	NACP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-30.96%	+21.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-9.65%	+5.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	-19.66%	+10.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.17%	-2.27%	+0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.66%	-5.72%	+5.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	2.25%	-1.33%

Volatility

BDGS vs. NACP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) is 2.30%, while Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP) has a volatility of 6.98%. This indicates that BDGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NACP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BDGS	NACP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.30%	6.98%	-4.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.17%	12.73%	-7.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.38%	15.25%	-8.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.22%	17.69%	-9.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.22%	18.77%	-10.55%

BDGS vs. NACP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.87% expense ratio, which is higher than NACP's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. NACP - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than NACP's 0.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NACP Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF	0.56%	0.62%	2.96%	1.28%	3.48%	3.06%	1.48%	1.22%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BDGS and NACP in my portfolio?

BDGS and NACP have a correlation of 0.74, 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 NACP?

NACP has higher volatility (6.98%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs NACP's -30.96%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or NACP?

On 3-year performance, NACP leads with 25.74% vs 13.42% for BDGS. On fees, NACP is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDGS or NACP?

Over the 3-year period, NACP has performed better with a 25.74% return vs 13.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDGS or NACP?

NACP is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

NACP has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between BDGS and NACP?

BDGS is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while NACP is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Bridges and Impact Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.87% for BDGS and 0.49% for NACP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NACP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 1.84), 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.