FCTE vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FCTE (SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCTE is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by SMI 3Fourteen, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FCTE returned 13.55% vs 10.14% for BDGS. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FCTE charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FCTE vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF (FCTE) 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, FCTE achieves a 16.87% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.35% return.

FCTE

• 1D: 1.22%
• 1M: 0.54%
• 6M: 9.25%
• YTD: 16.87%
• 1Y: 13.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.91%

BDGS

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -0.71%
• 6M: 4.08%
• YTD: 4.35%
• 1Y: 10.14%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.11%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	$35.83K	$93.96K	$183.58K
FCTE SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF	$395.29K	$768.22K	$634.95K

FCTE vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FCTE SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF	16.87%	-3.80%	6.19%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	13.35%

Correlation

The correlation between FCTE and BDGS is 0.42, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2024	0.57

The correlation between FCTE and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.57 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCTE vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCTE	BDGS
Technology	30.1%	38.9%
Industrials	25.0%	6.8%
Healthcare	19.9%	7.1%
Communication Services	10.0%	15.1%
Energy	5.0%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	5.0%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	3.6%
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Financial Services	-	9.3%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

FCTE vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FCTE

FCTE Risk / Return Rank: 32
FCTE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FCTE Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
FCTE Omega Ratio Rank: 31
FCTE Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
FCTE Martin Ratio Rank: 31

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 64
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FCTE vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF (FCTE) 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.

	FCTE	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.82	1.38	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	2.12	-0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.28	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.97	2.04	-1.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.74	8.70	-5.96

FCTE vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCTE Sharpe Ratio is 0.82, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCTE 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

FCTE vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCTE drawdown since its inception was -19.68%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCTE and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCTE	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.68%	-9.12%	-10.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.85%	-4.76%	-8.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.37%	-2.03%	+1.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.63%	-0.69%	-4.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.55%	1.12%	+3.43%

Volatility

FCTE vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF (FCTE) has a higher volatility of 3.40% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.21%. This indicates that FCTE'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

	FCTE	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.40%	3.21%	+0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.21%	6.11%	+6.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.29%	7.06%	+8.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.40%	8.30%	+10.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.40%	8.30%	+10.10%

FCTE vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCTE has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCTE vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FCTE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, less than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
FCTE SMI 3Fourteen Full-Cycle Trend ETF	0.08%	0.18%	0.18%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCTE and BDGS in my portfolio?

FCTE 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, FCTE or BDGS?

FCTE has higher volatility (3.40%) compared to BDGS (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCTE dropped -19.68% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FCTE or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, FCTE leads with 13.55% vs 10.14% for BDGS. On fees, FCTE is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCTE or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, FCTE has performed better with a 13.55% return vs 10.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCTE or BDGS?

FCTE is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.08% for FCTE.

What is the main difference between FCTE and BDGS?

FCTE is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: SMI 3Fourteen and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for FCTE and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 0.82), 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.