CFA vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CFA (VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CFA is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CFA returned 13.58%/yr vs 13.55%/yr for BDGS. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFA achieves a 7.69% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.55% return.

CFA

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 1.47%
• YTD: 7.69%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 15.39%
• 3Y*: 13.58%
• 5Y*: 8.23%
• 10Y*: 11.89%

BDGS

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 4.55%
• 6M: 4.54%
• 1Y: 12.84%
• 3Y*: 13.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CFA vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CFA VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF	7.69%	8.63%	15.34%	11.10%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.55%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between CFA and BDGS is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.55

The correlation between CFA and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (1 year) to 0.55 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CFA vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CFA	BDGS
Industrials	18.1%	6.6%
Financial Services	17.8%	9.3%
Technology	17.1%	37.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	10.9%
Healthcare	9.6%	7.5%
Utilities	8.5%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	4.1%
Energy	5.1%	2.6%
Basic Materials	3.6%	1.5%
Communication Services	3.6%	16.6%
Real Estate	0.4%	1.5%

Return for Risk

CFA vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CFA

CFA Risk / Return Rank: 43
CFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
CFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CFA Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
CFA Martin Ratio Rank: 49

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 70
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 77

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

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.

	CFA	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	2.03	-0.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	3.03	-0.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.41	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.17	3.20	-1.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.02	14.21	-6.19

CFA vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. 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.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFA	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.74%	-9.12%	-28.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	-4.03%	-3.10%
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	-0.83%	-1.84%	+1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.16%	-0.66%	-3.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.92%	0.91%	+1.01%

Volatility

CFA vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) has a higher volatility of 3.00% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.28%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	CFA	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.00%	2.28%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.06%	5.16%	+2.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.92%	6.38%	+4.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.08%	8.23%	+6.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.23%	8.23%	+9.00%

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 1.25%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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	1.25%	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

Can I hold both CFA and BDGS in my portfolio?

CFA and BDGS have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CFA or BDGS?

CFA has higher volatility (3.00%) compared to BDGS (2.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFA dropped -37.74% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, CFA or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, CFA leads with 13.58% vs 13.55% for BDGS. On fees, CFA is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CFA or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, CFA has performed better with a 13.58% return vs 13.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFA or BDGS?

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

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

CFA has the higher dividend yield at 1.25%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between CFA and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CFA and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.42), 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.