CANQ vs. BDGS

Last updated Jul 31, 2026

CANQ (Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CANQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Calamos, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CANQ returned 7.60% vs 9.00% for BDGS. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CANQ charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

CANQ vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CANQ achieves a 2.75% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 3.78% return.

CANQ

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: -1.83%
• 6M: 2.13%
• YTD: 2.75%
• 1Y: 7.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.51%

BDGS

• 1D: 2.30%
• 1M: -0.89%
• 6M: 3.44%
• YTD: 3.78%
• 1Y: 9.00%
• 3Y*: 12.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.93%

*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)
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	$36.60K	$231.39K	$185.93K
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF	$66.24K	$65.88K	$124.45K

CANQ vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF	2.75%	11.69%	18.99%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	3.78%	10.61%	17.60%

Correlation

The correlation between CANQ and BDGS is 0.82, 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.	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2024	0.74

The correlation between CANQ and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CANQ vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CANQ

CANQ Risk / Return Rank: 25
CANQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CANQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
CANQ Omega Ratio Rank: 25
CANQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CANQ Martin Ratio Rank: 25

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 62
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 62
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

CANQ vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). 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.

	CANQ	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.66	1.28	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.98	1.97	-0.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.26	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	1.90	-1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.03	8.12	-6.09

CANQ vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CANQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.66, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CANQ and BDGS, 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

CANQ vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CANQ drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANQ and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CANQ	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.79%	-9.12%	-3.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.77%	-4.76%	-6.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.86%	-2.57%	-2.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.99%	-0.69%	-2.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.75%	1.11%	+2.64%

Volatility

CANQ vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) have volatilities of 3.12% and 3.21%, 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

	CANQ	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.12%	3.21%	-0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.77%	6.09%	+2.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.64%	7.04%	+4.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.76%	8.30%	+4.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.76%	8.30%	+4.46%

CANQ vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CANQ has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

CANQ vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

CANQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.59%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF	4.59%	5.02%	4.19%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CANQ and BDGS in my portfolio?

CANQ and BDGS have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CANQ or BDGS?

BDGS has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to CANQ (3.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANQ dropped -12.79% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, CANQ or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 9.00% vs 7.60% for CANQ. On fees, BDGS is cheaper at 0.87% 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, CANQ or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 9.00% return vs 7.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CANQ or BDGS?

BDGS is cheaper with a 0.87% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CANQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CANQ or BDGS?

CANQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between CANQ and BDGS?

CANQ is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CANQ and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs 0.66), 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.