CZAR vs. BDGS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS).

CZAR and BDGS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CZAR is a passively managed fund by Themes that tracks the performance of the Solactive Natural Monopoly Index - Benchmark TR Gross. It was launched on Dec 12, 2023. BDGS is an actively managed fund by Bridges. It was launched on May 10, 2023.

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.

CZAR vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	-4.66%	13.32%	10.92%	2.34%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	-1.41%	10.61%	19.07%	0.32%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZAR achieves a -4.66% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's -1.41% return.

CZAR

• 1D: 1.90%
• 1M: -4.94%
• YTD: -4.66%
• 6M: -4.96%
• 1Y: 5.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: 1.96%
• 1M: -1.14%
• YTD: -1.41%
• 6M: 0.11%
• 1Y: 10.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CZAR vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZAR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.85% expense ratio.

BDGS

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF

CZAR

Themes Natural Monopoly ETF

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: 23
CZAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
CZAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
CZAR Omega Ratio Rank: 22
CZAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CZAR Martin Ratio Rank: 25

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 73
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

	CZAR	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.35	0.99	-0.64
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.60	1.67	-1.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.28	-0.20
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.54	1.80	-1.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.93	9.34	-7.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CZAR vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZAR Sharpe Ratio is 0.35, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZAR and BDGS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CZAR	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35	0.99	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	1.51	-0.90

Correlation

The correlation between CZAR and BDGS is 0.52, 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

CZAR vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

CZAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than BDGS's 0.56% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	1.54%	1.47%	0.94%	0.00%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.56%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%

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	-10.29%	-5.85%	-4.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.30%	-2.15%	-5.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.06%	-0.67%	-1.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.87%	1.13%	+1.74%

Volatility

CZAR vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) has a higher volatility of 4.80% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.39%. 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	4.80%	3.39%	+1.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.72%	5.09%	+4.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.91%	10.70%	+5.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.26%	8.35%	+6.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.26%	8.35%	+6.91%