CSM vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CSM (Proshares Large Cap Core Plus) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CSM is a Long-Short fund tracking the Credit Suisse 130/30 Large-Cap Index, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. CSM is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CSM returned 21.18%/yr vs 13.55%/yr for BDGS. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CSM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

CSM vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Proshares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM) 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, CSM achieves a 7.38% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.55% return.

CSM

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: -0.08%
• YTD: 7.38%
• 6M: 7.05%
• 1Y: 26.96%
• 3Y*: 21.18%
• 5Y*: 13.06%
• 10Y*: 14.57%

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)

CSM vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CSM Proshares Large Cap Core Plus	7.38%	21.84%	22.09%	17.35%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.55%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between CSM and BDGS is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.76

The correlation between CSM and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

CSM vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CSM	BDGS
Technology	33.0%	37.4%
Financial Services	12.1%	9.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	10.9%
Industrials	9.6%	6.6%
Healthcare	9.2%	7.5%
Communication Services	8.9%	16.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	4.1%
Utilities	3.9%	1.9%
Real Estate	3.6%	1.5%
Energy	2.9%	2.6%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.5%

Return for Risk

CSM vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSM

CSM Risk / Return Rank: 67
CSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
CSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
CSM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
CSM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

CSM vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM) 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.

	CSM	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	2.03	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	3.03	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.41	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	3.20	-0.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.13	14.21	-2.07

CSM vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSM 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

CSM vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSM drawdown since its inception was -36.11%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSM and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSM	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.11%	-9.12%	-26.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.40%	-4.03%	-5.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.30%	-9.12%	-9.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.82%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.30%	-1.84%	-0.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.03%	-0.66%	-3.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	0.91%	+1.32%

Volatility

CSM vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Proshares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM) has a higher volatility of 4.33% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.28%. This indicates that CSM'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

	CSM	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	2.28%	+2.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.51%	5.16%	+4.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.37%	6.38%	+5.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.18%	8.23%	+8.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.42%	8.23%	+10.19%

CSM vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

CSM vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

CSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, 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%
CSM Proshares Large Cap Core Plus	1.02%	1.04%	1.06%	1.17%	1.37%	0.78%	1.21%	1.41%	1.54%	1.28%	1.49%	1.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSM and BDGS in my portfolio?

CSM and BDGS have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CSM or BDGS?

CSM has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to BDGS (2.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CSM dropped -36.11% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, CSM or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, CSM leads with 21.18% vs 13.55% for BDGS. On fees, CSM is cheaper at 0.45% 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, CSM or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, CSM has performed better with a 21.18% return vs 13.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSM or BDGS?

CSM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

CSM has the higher dividend yield at 1.02%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between CSM and BDGS?

CSM is categorized as Long-Short, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CSM and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 2.03), 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.