BDGS vs. SAMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and SAMT (Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BDGS returned 14.06%/yr vs 28.84%/yr for SAMT. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BDGS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for SAMT.

Performance

BDGS vs. SAMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDGS achieves a 5.64% return, which is significantly lower than SAMT's 20.25% return.

BDGS

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 5.64%
• 6M: 5.65%
• 1Y: 13.85%
• 3Y*: 14.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SAMT

• 1D: -0.66%
• 1M: 6.66%
• YTD: 20.25%
• 6M: 23.92%
• 1Y: 42.07%
• 3Y*: 28.84%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BDGS vs. SAMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	20.25%	33.10%	28.15%	4.28%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and SAMT is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.61

The correlation between BDGS and SAMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

BDGS vs. SAMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDGS	SAMT
Technology	37.4%	27.8%
Communication Services	16.6%	7.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	5.6%
Financial Services	9.3%	5.6%
Healthcare	7.5%	4.3%
Industrials	6.6%	22.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	12.0%
Energy	2.6%	2.9%
Utilities	1.9%	6.6%
Real Estate	1.5%	2.9%
Basic Materials	1.5%	2.7%

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. SAMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 74
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

SAMT

SAMT Risk / Return Rank: 77
SAMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
SAMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
SAMT Omega Ratio Rank: 70
SAMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
SAMT Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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. SAMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT). 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	SAMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	2.53	-0.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.40	3.35	+0.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.42	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	5.19	-1.74
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	16.47	14.30	+2.17
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. SAMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the SAMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and SAMT, 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	SAMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.29	2.53	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.76	0.98	+0.78

Drawdowns

BDGS vs. SAMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, smaller than the maximum SAMT drawdown of -20.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and SAMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	SAMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-20.57%	+11.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-8.15%	+4.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	-18.27%	+9.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.83%	-0.66%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.64%	-7.72%	+7.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.84%	2.95%	-2.11%

Volatility

BDGS vs. SAMT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) is 1.14%, while Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT) has a volatility of 6.82%. This indicates that BDGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SAMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BDGS	SAMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.14%	6.82%	-5.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.74%	12.56%	-7.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.08%	16.68%	-10.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.21%	16.94%	-8.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.21%	16.94%	-8.73%

BDGS vs. SAMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than SAMT's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. SAMT - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than SAMT's 0.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	0.58%	0.70%	1.40%	1.49%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BDGS and SAMT in my portfolio?

BDGS and SAMT have a correlation of 0.55, 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 SAMT?

SAMT has higher volatility (6.82%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs SAMT's -20.57%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or SAMT?

On 3-year performance, SAMT leads with 28.84% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, SAMT is cheaper at 0.66% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDGS or SAMT?

Over the 3-year period, SAMT has performed better with a 28.84% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDGS or SAMT?

SAMT is cheaper with a 0.66% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BDGS.

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

SAMT has the higher dividend yield at 0.58%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between BDGS and SAMT?

They also come from different issuers: Bridges and Strategas. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BDGS and 0.66% for SAMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SAMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs 2.29), 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.