BSVO vs. ECML

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BSVO (EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF) and ECML (Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BSVO returned 16.92%/yr vs 12.90%/yr for ECML. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BSVO charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ECML.

Performance

BSVO vs. ECML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF (BSVO) and Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BSVO achieves a 27.67% return, which is significantly higher than ECML's 20.68% return.

BSVO

• 1D: 1.62%
• 1M: 3.17%
• 6M: 16.16%
• YTD: 27.67%
• 1Y: 49.97%
• 3Y*: 16.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.53%

ECML

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 2.99%
• 6M: 13.16%
• YTD: 20.68%
• 1Y: 32.93%
• 3Y*: 12.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.15%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BSVO EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF	$3.29M	$4.03M	$4.10M
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	$558.70K	$303.49K	$267.73K

BSVO vs. ECML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BSVO EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF	27.67%	9.21%	4.68%	27.80%
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	20.68%	6.82%	2.37%	26.00%

Correlation

The correlation between BSVO and ECML is 0.80, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2023	0.86

The correlation between BSVO and ECML has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

BSVO vs. ECML - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BSVO	ECML
Financial Services	34.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	15.7%	24.6%
Industrials	13.0%	13.0%
Energy	12.5%	13.2%
Technology	6.1%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	12.3%
Basic Materials	4.8%	11.6%
Communication Services	4.1%	3.3%
Healthcare	3.7%	14.4%
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

BSVO vs. ECML — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BSVO

BSVO Risk / Return Rank: 94
BSVO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
BSVO Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
BSVO Omega Ratio Rank: 93
BSVO Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
BSVO Martin Ratio Rank: 94

ECML

ECML Risk / Return Rank: 90
ECML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 87
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 87

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BSVO vs. ECML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF (BSVO) and Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML). 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.

	BSVO	ECML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	2.36	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.95	3.58	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.41	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.04	4.72	+1.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.67	13.83	+4.84

BSVO vs. ECML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BSVO Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is comparable to the ECML Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BSVO and ECML, 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

BSVO vs. ECML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BSVO drawdown since its inception was -28.67%, which is greater than ECML's maximum drawdown of -24.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSVO and ECML.

Drawdown Indicators

	BSVO	ECML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.67%	-24.66%	-4.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.31%	-7.01%	-1.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.67%	-24.66%	-4.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.41%	+0.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.49%	-5.61%	+0.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.68%	2.39%	+0.29%

Volatility

BSVO vs. ECML - Volatility Comparison

EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF (BSVO) has a higher volatility of 3.74% compared to Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) at 3.24%. This indicates that BSVO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECML based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BSVO	ECML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.74%	3.24%	+0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.58%	9.18%	+2.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.94%	14.06%	+3.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.41%	18.12%	+3.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.41%	18.12%	+3.29%

BSVO vs. ECML - Expense Ratio Comparison

BSVO has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than ECML's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

BSVO vs. ECML - Dividend Comparison

BSVO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.19%, more than ECML's 1.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BSVO EA Bridgeway Omni Small-Cap Value ETF	1.19%	1.52%	1.61%	1.43%
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	1.14%	1.38%	0.98%	0.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BSVO and ECML in my portfolio?

BSVO and ECML have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BSVO or ECML?

BSVO has higher volatility (3.74%) compared to ECML (3.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSVO dropped -28.67% vs ECML's -24.66%.

Which ETF is better, BSVO or ECML?

On 3-year performance, BSVO leads with 16.92% vs 12.90% for ECML. On fees, BSVO is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, ECML has been the lower-risk option at 3.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BSVO or ECML?

Over the 3-year period, BSVO has performed better with a 16.92% return vs 12.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BSVO or ECML?

BSVO is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BSVO or ECML?

BSVO has the higher dividend yield at 1.19%, compared with 1.14% for ECML.

What is the main difference between BSVO and ECML?

They also come from different issuers: Bridgeway and Euclidean. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for BSVO and 0.95% for ECML.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BSVO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.36), 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.