BGIG vs. FDL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) and FDL (First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. BGIG is actively managed, while FDL is passively managed. Over the past year, BGIG returned 19.51% vs 23.67% for FDL. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.45% expense ratio.

Performance

BGIG vs. FDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGIG achieves a 9.84% return, which is significantly lower than FDL's 13.33% return.

BGIG

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 9.84%
• 6M: 9.56%
• 1Y: 19.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDL

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: -0.26%
• YTD: 13.33%
• 6M: 14.76%
• 1Y: 23.67%
• 3Y*: 18.97%
• 5Y*: 12.51%
• 10Y*: 11.24%

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

BGIG vs. FDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	9.84%	12.49%	16.84%	4.55%
FDL First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund	13.33%	14.79%	17.98%	5.35%

Correlation

The correlation between BGIG and FDL is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.68

The correlation between BGIG and FDL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

BGIG vs. FDL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BGIG	FDL
Technology	24.6%	1.1%
Financial Services	14.8%	15.1%
Healthcare	14.6%	16.8%
Energy	11.2%	27.3%
Industrials	10.6%	3.8%
Utilities	7.9%	6.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	14.7%
Consumer Cyclical	5.4%	3.8%
Real Estate	3.5%	-
Basic Materials	0.6%	0.3%
Communication Services	-	10.6%

Return for Risk

BGIG vs. FDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 68
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

FDL

FDL Risk / Return Rank: 70
FDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
FDL Omega Ratio Rank: 59
FDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FDL Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. FDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL). 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.

	BGIG	FDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.18	2.11	+0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	3.25	-0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	5.56	-2.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.97	13.56	-0.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BGIG vs. FDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGIG Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the FDL Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGIG and FDL, 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

	BGIG	FDL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.18	2.11	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.88	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.38	0.45	+0.93

Drawdowns

BGIG vs. FDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGIG drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, smaller than the maximum FDL drawdown of -65.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGIG and FDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGIG	FDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.24%	-65.93%	+52.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-4.27%	-1.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.46%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-2.18%	+1.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.70%	-9.66%	+7.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.51%	1.75%	-0.24%

Volatility

BGIG vs. FDL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) is 2.57%, while First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL) has a volatility of 2.85%. This indicates that BGIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGIG	FDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.57%	2.85%	-0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.72%	7.87%	-1.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.00%	11.28%	-2.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.94%	14.31%	-2.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.94%	17.11%	-5.17%

BGIG vs. FDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BGIG vs. FDL - Dividend Comparison

BGIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than FDL's 3.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.75%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDL First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund	3.68%	4.04%	4.96%	4.58%	3.58%	4.59%	4.48%	3.75%	3.97%	3.18%	2.93%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGIG and FDL in my portfolio?

BGIG and FDL have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BGIG or FDL?

FDL has higher volatility (2.85%) compared to BGIG (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGIG dropped -13.24% vs FDL's -65.93%.

Which ETF is better, BGIG or FDL?

On 1-year performance, FDL leads with 23.67% vs 19.51% for BGIG. Both ETFs have the same 0.45% expense ratio. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BGIG or FDL?

Over the 1-year period, FDL has performed better with a 23.67% return vs 19.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BGIG or FDL?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BGIG or FDL?

FDL has the higher dividend yield at 3.68%, compared with 1.75% for BGIG.

What is the main difference between BGIG and FDL?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGIG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 2.11), 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.