BDGS vs. UMI

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges, while UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc.. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BDGS returned 13.55%/yr vs 27.84%/yr for UMI. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BDGS charges 0.87%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for UMI.

Performance

BDGS vs. UMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDGS achieves a 4.55% return, which is significantly lower than UMI's 21.76% return.

BDGS

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 4.55%
• 6M: 4.54%
• 1Y: 12.84%
• 3Y*: 13.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UMI

• 1D: 0.96%
• 1M: -5.27%
• YTD: 21.76%
• 6M: 23.01%
• 1Y: 24.46%
• 3Y*: 27.84%
• 5Y*: 20.20%
• 10Y*: —

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

BDGS vs. UMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.55%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	21.76%	5.11%	42.97%	14.30%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and UMI is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.12
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.19

The correlation between BDGS and UMI shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.19 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BDGS vs. UMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDGS	UMI
Technology	37.4%	-
Communication Services	16.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	-
Financial Services	9.3%	-
Healthcare	7.5%	-
Industrials	6.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	-
Energy	2.6%	99.0%
Utilities	1.9%	1.0%
Real Estate	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	1.5%	-

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. UMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 70
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 77

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 54
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 48
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. UMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). 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	UMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	1.73	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	2.40	+0.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.30	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	3.28	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.21	8.47	+5.73

BDGS vs. UMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the UMI Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and UMI, 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. UMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, smaller than the maximum UMI drawdown of -48.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and UMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDGS	UMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-48.08%	+38.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.03%	-7.50%	+3.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.12%	-17.08%	+7.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.05%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.84%	-5.35%	+3.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.66%	-6.59%	+5.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.91%	2.90%	-1.99%

Volatility

BDGS vs. UMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) is 2.28%, while USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a volatility of 5.33%. This indicates that BDGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BDGS	UMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.28%	5.33%	-3.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.16%	11.05%	-5.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.38%	14.23%	-7.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.23%	19.45%	-11.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.23%	23.16%	-14.93%

BDGS vs. UMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.87% expense ratio, which is higher than UMI's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. UMI - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than UMI's 6.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	6.02%	6.23%	4.39%	4.67%	4.36%	3.00%	2.18%	2.47%	2.48%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BDGS and UMI in my portfolio?

BDGS and UMI have a correlation of -0.12, 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 UMI?

UMI has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to BDGS (2.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs UMI's -48.08%.

Which ETF is better, BDGS or UMI?

On 3-year performance, UMI leads with 27.84% vs 13.55% for BDGS. On fees, UMI is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDGS or UMI?

Over the 3-year period, UMI has performed better with a 27.84% return vs 13.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDGS or UMI?

UMI is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

UMI has the higher dividend yield at 6.02%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between BDGS and UMI?

BDGS is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while UMI is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Bridges and Wainwright, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 0.87% for BDGS and 0.85% for UMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.73), 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.