PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CFA vs. BDGS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CFA vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CFA is a Low Volatility fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory U.S. Large Cap 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. CFA is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CFA returned 12.46%/yr vs 13.19%/yr for BDGS. Their 0.53 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

CFA vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 10.24% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.35% return.

CFA

1D
-0.18%
1M
0.23%
6M
7.04%
YTD
10.24%
1Y
15.32%
3Y*
12.46%
5Y*
7.95%
10Y*
11.58%
ALL TIME*
10.46%

BDGS

1D
0.56%
1M
-0.71%
6M
4.08%
YTD
4.35%
1Y
10.14%
3Y*
13.19%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
13.11%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

BDGS

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF
$35.83K$93.96K$183.58K

CFA

VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF
$524.86K$498.13K$606.17K

CFA vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
CFA
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF		10.24%8.63%15.34%11.10%
BDGS
Bridges Capital Tactical ETF		4.35%10.61%19.07%8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and BDGS is 0.37, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.37

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023

0.53

The correlation between CFA and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.54 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CFA vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CFA
BDGS

Industrials

18.6%
6.8%

Financial Services

18.1%
9.3%

Technology

16.6%
38.9%

Healthcare

9.8%
7.1%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
12.2%

Utilities

8.7%
1.8%

Consumer Defensive

6.6%
3.6%

Energy

4.8%
2.4%

Basic Materials

3.5%
1.3%

Communication Services

3.2%
15.1%

Real Estate

0.4%
1.5%

Industrials

CFA
18.6%
BDGS
6.8%

Financial Services

CFA
18.1%
BDGS
9.3%

Technology

CFA
16.6%
BDGS
38.9%

Healthcare

CFA
9.8%
BDGS
7.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CFA
9.6%
BDGS
12.2%

Utilities

CFA
8.7%
BDGS
1.8%

Consumer Defensive

CFA
6.6%
BDGS
3.6%

Energy

CFA
4.8%
BDGS
2.4%

Basic Materials

CFA
3.5%
BDGS
1.3%

Communication Services

CFA
3.2%
BDGS
15.1%

Real Estate

CFA
0.4%
BDGS
1.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF

Often compared with CFA:
CFA vs. CFOCFA vs. SPYCFA vs. CDCCFA vs. XLGCFA vs. LGLVCFA vs. VONGCFA vs. FNCMX
Often compared with BDGS:
BDGS vs. AFLGBDGS vs. AAPYBDGS vs. AMZPBDGS vs. BEEZBDGS vs. GDEBDGS vs. MODLBDGS vs. PRAY

Return for Risk

CFA vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
CFA
CFA Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
BDGS
BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.

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.

CFABDGSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.34
1.38

-0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.98
2.12

-0.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.28

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.01

2.04

-0.03

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.58

8.70

-1.12

CFA vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFA 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.

Loading charts...

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 charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CFABDGSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.74%

-9.12%

-28.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.13%

-4.76%

-2.37%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.28%

-9.12%

-8.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.88%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.74%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.36%

-2.03%

+0.67%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.12%

-0.69%

-3.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.89%

1.12%

+0.77%

Volatility

CFA vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) is 2.68%, while Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) has a volatility of 3.21%. This indicates that CFA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BDGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CFABDGSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.68%

3.21%

-0.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.88%

6.11%

+1.77%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.75%

7.06%

+3.69%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.03%

8.30%

+6.73%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.14%

8.30%

+8.84%

CFA vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFA vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

CFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BDGS
Bridges Capital Tactical ETF		0.53%0.55%1.81%0.84%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CFA
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF		1.22%1.29%1.32%1.42%1.59%1.04%1.21%1.35%1.50%1.15%1.37%1.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

CFA and BDGS have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BDGS has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to CFA (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.19% vs 12.46% for CFA. On fees, CFA is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CFA has been the lower-risk option at 2.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.19% return vs 12.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CFA is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

CFA has the higher dividend yield at 1.22%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

CFA is categorized as Low Volatility, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.87% for BDGS.

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 1.34), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CFA and BDGS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer