BGIG vs. FVAL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) and FVAL (Fidelity Value Factor ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. BGIG is actively managed, while FVAL is passively managed. Over the past year, BGIG returned 19.51% vs 31.42% for FVAL. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BGIG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FVAL.

Performance

BGIG vs. FVAL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL). 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 FVAL's 11.14% return.

BGIG

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

FVAL

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: 5.54%
• YTD: 11.14%
• 6M: 12.79%
• 1Y: 31.42%
• 3Y*: 20.96%
• 5Y*: 12.53%
• 10Y*: —

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

BGIG vs. FVAL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	9.84%	12.49%	16.84%	4.55%
FVAL Fidelity Value Factor ETF	11.14%	19.56%	18.05%	7.59%

Correlation

The correlation between BGIG and FVAL is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.75

The correlation between BGIG and FVAL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

BGIG vs. FVAL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BGIG	FVAL
Technology	24.6%	32.6%
Financial Services	14.8%	11.4%
Healthcare	14.6%	9.3%
Energy	11.2%	4.1%
Industrials	10.6%	8.1%
Utilities	7.9%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	4.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.4%	9.9%
Real Estate	3.5%	2.4%
Basic Materials	0.6%	1.9%
Communication Services	-	9.4%

Return for Risk

BGIG vs. FVAL — 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

FVAL

FVAL Risk / Return Rank: 79
FVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
FVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. FVAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL). 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	FVAL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.18	2.73	-0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	3.78	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.49	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	3.54	-0.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.97	15.80	-2.83
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. FVAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGIG Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the FVAL Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGIG and FVAL, 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	FVAL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.18	2.73	-0.55
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.76	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.38	0.81	+0.57

Drawdowns

BGIG vs. FVAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGIG drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, smaller than the maximum FVAL drawdown of -37.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGIG and FVAL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGIG	FVAL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.24%	-37.26%	+24.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-8.92%	+3.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.42%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-0.75%	+0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.70%	-4.58%	+2.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.51%	1.99%	-0.48%

Volatility

BGIG vs. FVAL - Volatility Comparison

Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL) have volatilities of 2.57% and 2.70%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGIG	FVAL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.57%	2.70%	-0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.72%	8.64%	-1.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.00%	11.56%	-2.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.94%	16.48%	-4.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.94%	18.11%	-6.17%

BGIG vs. FVAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGIG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than FVAL's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGIG vs. FVAL - Dividend Comparison

BGIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, more than FVAL's 1.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
FVAL Fidelity Value Factor ETF	1.49%	1.61%	1.60%	1.69%	1.79%	1.41%	1.61%	1.77%	2.06%	1.62%	0.45%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGIG and FVAL in my portfolio?

BGIG and FVAL have a correlation of 0.66, 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 FVAL?

FVAL has higher volatility (2.70%) compared to BGIG (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGIG dropped -13.24% vs FVAL's -37.26%.

Which ETF is better, BGIG or FVAL?

On 1-year performance, FVAL leads with 31.42% vs 19.51% for BGIG. On fees, FVAL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. 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 FVAL?

Over the 1-year period, FVAL has performed better with a 31.42% 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 FVAL?

FVAL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

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

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.49% for FVAL.

What is the main difference between BGIG and FVAL?

They also come from different issuers: Bahl & Gaynor and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for BGIG and 0.15% for FVAL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.18), 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.