FCFY vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FCFY (First Trust S&P 500 Diversified Free Cash Flow ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCFY is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Sector-Neutral FCF Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. FCFY is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past year, FCFY returned 24.21% vs 14.42% for BDGS. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FCFY charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FCFY vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust S&P 500 Diversified Free Cash Flow ETF (FCFY) 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, FCFY achieves a 4.16% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 5.94% return.

FCFY

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: 6.33%
• YTD: 4.16%
• 6M: 7.16%
• 1Y: 24.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.49%
• YTD: 5.94%
• 6M: 5.90%
• 1Y: 14.42%
• 3Y*: 14.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCFY vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FCFY First Trust S&P 500 Diversified Free Cash Flow ETF	4.16%	16.76%	11.28%	11.06%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.94%	10.61%	19.07%	5.65%

Correlation

The correlation between FCFY and BDGS is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 25, 2023	0.56

The correlation between FCFY and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCFY vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCFY	BDGS
Technology	37.4%	37.4%
Financial Services	11.5%	9.3%
Communication Services	10.3%	16.6%
Healthcare	10.1%	7.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	10.9%
Industrials	5.8%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	4.1%
Energy	4.0%	2.6%
Utilities	2.5%	1.9%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.5%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.5%

Return for Risk

FCFY vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCFY

FCFY Risk / Return Rank: 39
FCFY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
FCFY Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
FCFY Omega Ratio Rank: 40
FCFY Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
FCFY Martin Ratio Rank: 34

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 78
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 82
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

FCFY vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust S&P 500 Diversified Free Cash Flow ETF (FCFY) 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.

	FCFY	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	2.39	-0.90
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	3.54	-1.38
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.50	-0.23
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	3.67	-1.67
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.34	17.59	-12.25
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCFY vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCFY Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCFY 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FCFY	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.49	2.39	-0.90
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	1.77	-0.86

Drawdowns

FCFY vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCFY drawdown since its inception was -21.36%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCFY and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCFY	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.36%	-9.12%	-12.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.94%	-4.03%	-7.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.16%	-0.54%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.50%	-0.64%	-2.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.47%	0.84%	+3.63%

Volatility

FCFY vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

First Trust S&P 500 Diversified Free Cash Flow ETF (FCFY) has a higher volatility of 4.61% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.09%. This indicates that FCFY'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

	FCFY	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.61%	1.09%	+3.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.24%	4.73%	+6.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.36%	6.08%	+10.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.54%	8.21%	+9.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.54%	8.21%	+9.33%

FCFY vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCFY has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCFY vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FCFY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
FCFY First Trust S&P 500 Diversified Free Cash Flow ETF	1.42%	1.48%	1.76%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCFY and BDGS in my portfolio?

FCFY and BDGS have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCFY or BDGS?

FCFY has higher volatility (4.61%) compared to BDGS (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCFY dropped -21.36% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FCFY or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, FCFY leads with 24.21% vs 14.42% for BDGS. On fees, FCFY is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCFY or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, FCFY has performed better with a 24.21% return vs 14.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCFY or BDGS?

FCFY is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BDGS.

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

FCFY has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between FCFY and BDGS?

FCFY is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FCFY and 0.85% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.49), 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.