PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
BDGS vs. USMV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

BDGS vs. USMV

Last updated Jul 14, 2026
Documentation

BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) and USMV (iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. BDGS is actively managed, while USMV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BDGS returned 13.83%/yr vs 11.43%/yr for USMV. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BDGS charges 0.87%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for USMV.

Performance

BDGS vs. USMV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF (USMV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDGS achieves a 5.76% return, which is significantly higher than USMV's 4.64% return.

BDGS

1D
-0.21%
1M
1.03%
6M
5.24%
YTD
5.76%
1Y
11.67%
3Y*
13.83%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

USMV

1D
0.06%
1M
2.16%
6M
3.87%
YTD
4.64%
1Y
7.10%
3Y*
11.43%
5Y*
7.16%
10Y*
9.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BDGS vs. USMV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
BDGS
Bridges Capital Tactical ETF		5.76%10.61%19.07%8.23%
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF		4.64%7.65%15.74%7.60%

Correlation

The correlation between BDGS and USMV is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.28

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.43

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023

0.43

The correlation between BDGS and USMV shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.43 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BDGS vs. USMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
BDGS
USMV

Technology

37.4%
33.9%

Communication Services

16.6%
6.2%

Consumer Cyclical

10.9%
5.7%

Financial Services

9.3%
11.7%

Healthcare

7.5%
12.6%

Industrials

6.6%
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
9.4%

Energy

2.6%
2.7%

Utilities

1.9%
6.9%

Real Estate

1.5%
2.5%

Basic Materials

1.5%
2.4%

Technology

BDGS
37.4%
USMV
33.9%

Communication Services

BDGS
16.6%
USMV
6.2%

Consumer Cyclical

BDGS
10.9%
USMV
5.7%

Financial Services

BDGS
9.3%
USMV
11.7%

Healthcare

BDGS
7.5%
USMV
12.6%

Industrials

BDGS
6.6%
USMV
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

BDGS
4.1%
USMV
9.4%

Energy

BDGS
2.6%
USMV
2.7%

Utilities

BDGS
1.9%
USMV
6.9%

Real Estate

BDGS
1.5%
USMV
2.5%

Basic Materials

BDGS
1.5%
USMV
2.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF

iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with BDGS:
BDGS vs. AFLGBDGS vs. AAPYBDGS vs. BEEZBDGS vs. AMZPBDGS vs. CFABDGS vs. GDEBDGS vs. MODL
Often compared with USMV:
USMV vs. SPLVUSMV vs. SPYUSMV vs. VOOUSMV vs. QUALUSMV vs. VFMVUSMV vs. ACWVUSMV vs. VTI

Return for Risk

BDGS vs. USMV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
BDGS
BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
USMV
USMV Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
USMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
USMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
USMV Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
USMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
USMV Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank
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. USMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF (USMV). 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.

BDGSUSMVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.84
0.84

+1.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.76
1.23

+1.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.15

+0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.91

1.10

+1.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.86

3.61

+8.25

BDGS vs. USMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is higher than the USMV Sharpe Ratio of 0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDGS and USMV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BDGS vs. USMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDGS drawdown since its inception was -9.12%, smaller than the maximum USMV drawdown of -33.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDGS and USMV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

BDGSUSMVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-9.12%

-33.10%

+23.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.03%

-6.46%

+2.43%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.12%

-9.36%

+0.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-17.93%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-33.10%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.71%

-0.54%

-0.17%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.67%

-2.87%

+2.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.99%

1.97%

-0.98%

Volatility

BDGS vs. USMV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) is 2.36%, while iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF (USMV) has a volatility of 2.54%. This indicates that BDGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

BDGSUSMVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.36%

2.54%

-0.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.28%

6.22%

-0.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.37%

8.48%

-2.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.19%

12.36%

-4.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.19%

14.49%

-6.30%

BDGS vs. USMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDGS has a 0.87% expense ratio, which is higher than USMV's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDGS vs. USMV - Dividend Comparison

BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than USMV's 1.48% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BDGS
Bridges Capital Tactical ETF		0.52%0.55%1.81%0.84%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF		1.48%1.49%1.67%1.82%1.62%1.26%1.81%1.88%2.12%1.77%2.22%2.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

BDGS and USMV have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

USMV has higher volatility (2.54%) compared to BDGS (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDGS dropped -9.12% vs USMV's -33.10%.

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.83% vs 11.43% for USMV. On fees, USMV is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.83% return vs 11.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

USMV is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

USMV has the higher dividend yield at 1.48%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

They also come from different issuers: Bridges and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.87% for BDGS and 0.15% for USMV.

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.84), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BDGS and USMV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer