FDL vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FDL (First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. FDL is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, FDL returned 25.50% vs 19.51% for BGIG. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.45% expense ratio.

Performance

FDL vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDL achieves a 14.21% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 9.84% return.

FDL

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 0.32%
• YTD: 14.21%
• 6M: 15.52%
• 1Y: 25.50%
• 3Y*: 19.57%
• 5Y*: 12.69%
• 10Y*: 11.28%

BGIG

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 9.84%
• 6M: 9.56%
• 1Y: 19.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDL vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDL First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund	14.21%	14.79%	17.98%	5.35%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	9.84%	12.49%	16.84%	4.55%

Correlation

The correlation between FDL and BGIG is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.68

The correlation between FDL and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDL vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDL	BGIG
Energy	27.3%	11.2%
Healthcare	16.8%	14.6%
Financial Services	15.1%	14.8%
Consumer Defensive	14.7%	6.9%
Communication Services	10.6%	-
Utilities	6.5%	7.9%
Industrials	3.8%	10.6%
Consumer Cyclical	3.8%	5.4%
Technology	1.1%	24.6%
Basic Materials	0.3%	0.6%
Real Estate	-	3.5%

Return for Risk

FDL vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDL

FDL Risk / Return Rank: 77
FDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
FDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FDL Omega Ratio Rank: 67
FDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
FDL Martin Ratio Rank: 77

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 68
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

FDL vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	FDL	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	2.18	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	3.13	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.39	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.99	3.37	+2.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.59	12.97	+1.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDL vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDL Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDL and BGIG, 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

	FDL	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.27	2.18	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	1.38	-0.93

Drawdowns

FDL vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDL drawdown since its inception was -65.93%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDL and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDL	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.93%	-13.24%	-52.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.27%	-5.81%	+1.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.24%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.41%	-0.28%	-1.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.66%	-1.70%	-7.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.75%	1.51%	+0.24%

Volatility

FDL vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL) has a higher volatility of 2.95% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.57%. This indicates that FDL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDL	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	2.57%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.85%	6.72%	+1.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.30%	9.00%	+2.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.31%	11.94%	+2.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.11%	11.94%	+5.17%

FDL vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FDL and BGIG have an expense ratio of 0.45%.

Dividends

FDL vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

FDL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.65%, more than BGIG's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.75%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDL First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund	3.65%	4.04%	4.96%	4.58%	3.58%	4.59%	4.48%	3.75%	3.97%	3.18%	2.93%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDL and BGIG in my portfolio?

FDL and BGIG have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDL or BGIG?

FDL has higher volatility (2.95%) compared to BGIG (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDL dropped -65.93% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, FDL or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, FDL leads with 25.50% vs 19.51% for BGIG. Both ETFs have the same 0.45% expense ratio. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDL or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, FDL has performed better with a 25.50% return vs 19.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDL or BGIG?

FDL and BGIG have the same expense ratio: 0.45% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDL or BGIG?

FDL has the higher dividend yield at 3.65%, compared with 1.75% for BGIG.

What is the main difference between FDL and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Bahl & Gaynor.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 2.18), 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.