PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BGIG vs. ACVU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BGIG vs. ACVU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGIG achieves a 10.33% return, which is significantly lower than ACVU's 11.97% return.


BGIG

1D
0.45%
1M
2.02%
YTD
10.33%
6M
10.33%
1Y
20.42%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

ACVU

1D
0.82%
1M
3.91%
YTD
11.97%
6M
13.49%
1Y
24.97%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BGIG vs. ACVU - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
BGIG
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF
10.33%12.49%16.84%8.50%
ACVU
Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF
11.97%14.54%9.83%8.32%

Correlation

The correlation between BGIG and ACVU is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023

0.83

The correlation between BGIG and ACVU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

BGIG vs. ACVU - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BGIG
ACVU

Technology

24.6%
16.3%

Financial Services

14.8%
17.9%

Healthcare

14.6%
11.4%

Energy

11.2%
7.4%

Industrials

10.6%
11.6%

Utilities

7.9%
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

6.9%
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

5.4%
6.7%

Real Estate

3.5%
4.0%

Basic Materials

0.6%
2.4%

Communication Services

-

8.2%

Technology

BGIG
24.6%
ACVU
16.3%

Financial Services

BGIG
14.8%
ACVU
17.9%

Healthcare

BGIG
14.6%
ACVU
11.4%

Energy

BGIG
11.2%
ACVU
7.4%

Industrials

BGIG
10.6%
ACVU
11.6%

Utilities

BGIG
7.9%
ACVU
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

BGIG
6.9%
ACVU
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

BGIG
5.4%
ACVU
6.7%

Real Estate

BGIG
3.5%
ACVU
4.0%

Basic Materials

BGIG
0.6%
ACVU
2.4%

Communication Services

BGIG

-

ACVU
8.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

BGIG vs. ACVU — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGIG
BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

ACVU
ACVU Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
ACVU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACVU Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACVU Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
ACVU Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACVU Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
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.

BGIG vs. ACVU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU). 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.


BGIGACVUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.41

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.53

3.32

+0.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.58

12.71

+0.87

BGIG vs. ACVU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGIG Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the ACVU Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGIG and ACVU, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


BGIGACVUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.28

2.29

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.40

1.42

-0.03

Drawdowns

BGIG vs. ACVU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGIG drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, roughly equal to the maximum ACVU drawdown of -13.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGIG and ACVU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BGIGACVUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.24%

-13.11%

-0.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.81%

-7.56%

+1.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.70%

-1.96%

+0.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.51%

1.97%

-0.46%

Volatility

BGIG vs. ACVU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) is 2.59%, while Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF (ACVU) has a volatility of 3.24%. This indicates that BGIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACVU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BGIGACVUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.59%

3.24%

-0.65%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.72%

8.25%

-1.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.99%

10.96%

-1.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.94%

12.30%

-0.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.94%

12.30%

-0.36%

BGIG vs. ACVU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BGIG and ACVU have an expense ratio of 0.45%.


Dividends

BGIG vs. ACVU - Dividend Comparison

BGIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, less than ACVU's 1.76% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
ACVU
Hartford Alpha Capture Value ETF
1.76%1.97%3.91%2.87%
BGIG
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF
1.74%1.89%2.02%0.78%

Frequently Asked Questions


BGIG and ACVU have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ACVU has higher volatility (3.24%) compared to BGIG (2.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGIG dropped -13.24% vs ACVU's -13.11%.

On 1-year performance, ACVU leads with 24.97% vs 20.42% for BGIG. Both ETFs have the same 0.45% expense ratio. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ACVU has performed better with a 24.97% return vs 20.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BGIG and ACVU have the same expense ratio: 0.45% per year.

ACVU has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 1.74% for BGIG.

They also come from different issuers: Bahl & Gaynor and Hartford.

ACVU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 2.28), 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 BGIG and ACVU

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