BTR vs. TDVG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BTR (Beacon Tactical Risk ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BTR returned 4.17%/yr vs 14.55%/yr for TDVG. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BTR charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for TDVG.

Performance

BTR vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Beacon Tactical Risk ETF (BTR) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BTR achieves a 9.64% return, which is significantly lower than TDVG's 10.93% return.

BTR

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -0.14%
• 6M: 5.82%
• YTD: 9.64%
• 1Y: 17.44%
• 3Y*: 4.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.20%

TDVG

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 0.47%
• 6M: 9.09%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 1Y: 19.23%
• 3Y*: 14.55%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.28%

*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)
BTR Beacon Tactical Risk ETF	$78.21K	$71.52K	$93.67K
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	$2.11M	$3.07M	$2.63M

BTR vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BTR Beacon Tactical Risk ETF	9.64%	-2.15%	14.45%	-6.78%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	10.93%	14.80%	13.45%	10.11%

Correlation

The correlation between BTR and TDVG is 0.88, 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.	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2023	0.78

The correlation between BTR and TDVG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

BTR vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BTR	TDVG
Technology	12.3%	27.4%
Energy	10.0%	4.5%
Industrials	9.5%	14.4%
Healthcare	9.5%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	6.7%
Utilities	8.7%	3.2%
Communication Services	8.6%	0.8%
Real Estate	8.4%	1.5%
Basic Materials	8.2%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	7.9%	6.6%
Financial Services	7.5%	19.3%

Return for Risk

BTR vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BTR

BTR Risk / Return Rank: 74
BTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
BTR Omega Ratio Rank: 72
BTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BTR Martin Ratio Rank: 79

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 80
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

BTR vs. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Beacon Tactical Risk ETF (BTR) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). 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.

	BTR	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	1.87	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	2.69	-0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.34	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	2.51	+0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.17	10.48	-0.31

BTR vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BTR and TDVG, 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

BTR vs. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BTR drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, smaller than the maximum TDVG drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BTR and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BTR	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-19.20%	+2.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.23%	-7.24%	+1.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.67%	-14.02%	-2.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-0.92%	+0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.34%	-3.67%	-1.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	1.73%	-0.13%

Volatility

BTR vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Beacon Tactical Risk ETF (BTR) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) have volatilities of 2.20% and 2.20%, 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

	BTR	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.20%	2.20%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.15%	7.30%	-0.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.86%	9.74%	+0.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.80%	13.87%	-3.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.80%	13.81%	-3.01%

BTR vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BTR has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than TDVG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BTR vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

BTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, more than TDVG's 0.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BTR Beacon Tactical Risk ETF	1.17%	1.29%	0.87%	0.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	0.96%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BTR and TDVG in my portfolio?

BTR and TDVG have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BTR or TDVG?

TDVG has higher volatility (2.20%) compared to BTR (2.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BTR dropped -16.67% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, BTR or TDVG?

On 3-year performance, TDVG leads with 14.55% vs 4.17% for BTR. On fees, TDVG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BTR or TDVG?

Over the 3-year period, TDVG has performed better with a 14.55% return vs 4.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BTR or TDVG?

TDVG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BTR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BTR or TDVG?

BTR has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.96% for TDVG.

What is the main difference between BTR and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: American Beacon and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for BTR and 0.50% for TDVG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDVG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.66), 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.