BGIG vs. SMIG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) and SMIG (Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BGIG is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Bahl & Gaynor, while SMIG is a Small Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Bahl & Gaynor. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BGIG returned 19.97% vs 14.54% for SMIG. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BGIG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for SMIG.

Performance

BGIG vs. SMIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGIG achieves a 10.12% return, which is significantly lower than SMIG's 12.95% return.

BGIG

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: -0.02%
• YTD: 10.12%
• 6M: 9.82%
• 1Y: 19.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SMIG

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.34%
• YTD: 12.95%
• 6M: 11.75%
• 1Y: 14.54%
• 3Y*: 13.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BGIG vs. SMIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	10.12%	12.49%	16.84%	3.57%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	12.95%	0.78%	17.63%	7.40%

Correlation

The correlation between BGIG and SMIG is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.79

The correlation between BGIG and SMIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

BGIG vs. SMIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BGIG	SMIG
Technology	25.7%	10.7%
Healthcare	15.2%	2.7%
Financial Services	14.4%	21.1%
Industrials	10.3%	18.2%
Energy	10.2%	10.4%
Utilities	7.2%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	4.8%	13.5%
Real Estate	3.8%	9.8%
Communication Services	0.8%	2.2%
Basic Materials	0.6%	2.0%

Return for Risk

BGIG vs. SMIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 76
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

SMIG

SMIG Risk / Return Rank: 36
SMIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
SMIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
SMIG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
SMIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SMIG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. SMIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG). 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.

	BGIG	SMIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	1.22	+1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.18	1.86	+1.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.21	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	1.71	+1.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.32	4.45	+8.87

BGIG vs. SMIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGIG Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is higher than the SMIG Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGIG and SMIG, 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

BGIG vs. SMIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGIG drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, smaller than the maximum SMIG drawdown of -19.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGIG and SMIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGIG	SMIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.24%	-19.65%	+6.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-8.52%	+2.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.65%	-0.15%	-0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.75%	-6.48%	+4.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.50%	3.27%	-1.77%

Volatility

BGIG vs. SMIG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) is 2.46%, while Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) has a volatility of 3.60%. This indicates that BGIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGIG	SMIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.46%	3.60%	-1.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.74%	8.48%	-1.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.05%	12.05%	-3.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.90%	16.16%	-4.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.90%	16.16%	-4.26%

BGIG vs. SMIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGIG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than SMIG's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGIG vs. SMIG - Dividend Comparison

BGIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, more than SMIG's 1.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.74%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	1.71%	1.82%	1.75%	1.91%	2.00%	0.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGIG and SMIG in my portfolio?

BGIG and SMIG have a correlation of 0.77, 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 SMIG?

SMIG has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to BGIG (2.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGIG dropped -13.24% vs SMIG's -19.65%.

Which ETF is better, BGIG or SMIG?

On 1-year performance, BGIG leads with 19.97% vs 14.54% for SMIG. On fees, BGIG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BGIG or SMIG?

Over the 1-year period, BGIG has performed better with a 19.97% return vs 14.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BGIG or SMIG?

BGIG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for SMIG.

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

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.71% for SMIG.

What is the main difference between BGIG and SMIG?

BGIG is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while SMIG is Small Cap Value Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for BGIG and 0.60% for SMIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGIG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.22), 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.