DURA vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DURA (VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. DURA is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, DURA returned 10.25%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DURA charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

DURA vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (DURA) 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, DURA achieves a 12.23% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.21% return.

DURA

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -2.77%
• YTD: 12.23%
• 6M: 12.16%
• 1Y: 20.37%
• 3Y*: 10.25%
• 5Y*: 7.63%
• 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)

DURA vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DURA VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF	12.23%	7.61%	8.51%	3.09%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between DURA and BDGS is 0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.25

Over the past year, the correlation between DURA and BDGS has dropped to 0.01 - well below their long-term average of 0.25, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

DURA vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DURA	BDGS
Consumer Defensive	22.1%	4.1%
Healthcare	14.3%	7.5%
Energy	13.8%	2.6%
Technology	11.2%	37.4%
Financial Services	9.0%	9.3%
Communication Services	8.8%	16.6%
Utilities	6.6%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	10.9%
Industrials	6.0%	6.6%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.5%
Real Estate	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

DURA vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

DURA

DURA Risk / Return Rank: 50
DURA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
DURA Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
DURA Omega Ratio Rank: 52
DURA Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
DURA Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

DURA vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (DURA) 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.

	DURA	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	1.84	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	2.75	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.37	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.40	2.90	-0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.72	12.72	-3.00

DURA vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DURA Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DURA 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

DURA vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DURA drawdown since its inception was -33.15%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DURA and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	DURA	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.15%	-9.12%	-24.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.53%	-4.03%	-4.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.27%	-9.12%	-5.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.77%	-2.17%	-0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.91%	-0.66%	-3.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.10%	0.92%	+1.18%

Volatility

DURA vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (DURA) has a higher volatility of 3.22% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that DURA'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

	DURA	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.22%	2.30%	+0.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.78%	5.17%	+2.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.79%	6.38%	+8.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.61%	8.22%	+5.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.95%	8.22%	+8.73%

DURA vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

DURA has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

DURA vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

DURA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.31%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DURA VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF	3.31%	3.59%	3.33%	3.58%	3.01%	2.89%	3.49%	3.83%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DURA and BDGS in my portfolio?

DURA and BDGS have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DURA or BDGS?

DURA has higher volatility (3.22%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DURA dropped -33.15% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, DURA or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.42% vs 10.25% for DURA. On fees, DURA is cheaper at 0.29% 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, DURA or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.42% return vs 10.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DURA or BDGS?

DURA is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

DURA has the higher dividend yield at 3.31%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between DURA and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for DURA and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.38), 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.