CZAR vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CZAR (Themes Natural Monopoly ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CZAR is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past year, CZAR returned 0.92% vs 11.63% for BDGS. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CZAR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

CZAR vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) 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, CZAR achieves a -3.66% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 4.21% return.

CZAR

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: -3.86%
• YTD: -3.66%
• 6M: -3.68%
• 1Y: 0.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 4.21%
• 6M: 3.97%
• 1Y: 11.63%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CZAR vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	-3.66%	13.32%	10.92%	3.83%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	0.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CZAR and BDGS is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2023	0.50

The correlation between CZAR and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZAR vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZAR	BDGS
Industrials	27.5%	6.6%
Technology	19.6%	37.4%
Financial Services	18.0%	9.3%
Healthcare	8.3%	7.5%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	10.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	4.1%
Basic Materials	3.6%	1.5%
Energy	3.5%	2.6%
Utilities	2.7%	1.9%
Communication Services	2.2%	16.6%
Real Estate	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

CZAR vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZAR

CZAR Risk / Return Rank: 10
CZAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
CZAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
CZAR Omega Ratio Rank: 9
CZAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
CZAR Martin Ratio Rank: 10

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 62
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

CZAR vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) 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.

	CZAR	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.08	1.84	-1.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.19	2.75	-2.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.37	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.10	2.90	-2.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.29	12.72	-12.43

CZAR vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZAR Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZAR 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

CZAR vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZAR drawdown since its inception was -13.38%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZAR and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZAR	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.38%	-9.12%	-4.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-4.03%	-5.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.32%	-2.17%	-4.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.23%	-0.66%	-1.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	0.92%	+2.31%

Volatility

CZAR vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) has a higher volatility of 2.88% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that CZAR'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

	CZAR	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.88%	2.30%	+0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.96%	5.17%	+4.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.13%	6.38%	+5.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.98%	8.22%	+6.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.98%	8.22%	+6.76%

CZAR vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CZAR vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

CZAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, 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%
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	1.53%	1.47%	0.94%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZAR and BDGS in my portfolio?

CZAR and BDGS have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZAR or BDGS?

CZAR has higher volatility (2.88%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZAR dropped -13.38% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, CZAR or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 11.63% vs 0.92% for CZAR. On fees, CZAR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZAR or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 11.63% return vs 0.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZAR or BDGS?

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

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

CZAR has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between CZAR and BDGS?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.08), 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.