CFA vs. BDGS
Compare and contrast key facts about VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS).
CFA and BDGS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CFA is a passively managed fund by VictoryShares that tracks the performance of the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index. It was launched on Jul 2, 2014. BDGS is an actively managed fund by Bridges. It was launched on May 10, 2023.
Performance
CFA vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CFA vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF | 0.77% | 8.63% | 15.34% | 11.53% |
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF | -1.41% | 10.61% | 19.07% | 8.31% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 0.77% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's -1.41% return.
CFA
- 1D
- 1.82%
- 1M
- -5.31%
- YTD
- 0.77%
- 6M
- 1.23%
- 1Y
- 9.82%
- 3Y*
- 11.54%
- 5Y*
- 7.70%
- 10Y*
- 11.03%
BDGS
- 1D
- 1.96%
- 1M
- -1.14%
- YTD
- -1.41%
- 6M
- 0.11%
- 1Y
- 10.54%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CFA vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison
CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.85% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
CFA vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank
CFA
BDGS
CFA vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) 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.
| CFA | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.62 | 0.99 | -0.37 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.98 | 1.67 | -0.69 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 1.28 | -0.14 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.90 | 1.80 | -0.90 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.12 | 9.34 | -5.22 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CFA | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.62 | 0.99 | -0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.51 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.64 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 1.51 | -0.92 |
Correlation
The correlation between CFA and BDGS is 0.57, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
CFA vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison
CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, more than BDGS's 0.56% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF | 1.33% | 1.29% | 1.32% | 1.42% | 1.59% | 1.04% | 1.21% | 1.35% | 1.50% | 1.15% | 1.37% | 1.31% |
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF | 0.56% | 0.55% | 1.81% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
CFA vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CFA drawdown since its inception was -37.74%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFA and BDGS.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CFA | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.74% | -9.12% | -28.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.90% | -5.85% | -6.05% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.88% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.74% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.45% | -2.15% | -3.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.21% | -0.67% | -3.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.59% | 1.13% | +1.46% |
Volatility
CFA vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) has a higher volatility of 4.20% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.39%. This indicates that CFA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BDGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CFA | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.20% | 3.39% | +0.81% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.19% | 5.09% | +3.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.03% | 10.70% | +5.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.10% | 8.35% | +6.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.23% | 8.35% | +8.88% |