FJUN vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FJUN (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. FJUN is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FJUN returned 14.38%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for BDGS. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FJUN charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FJUN vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) 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, FJUN achieves a 4.64% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 5.64% return.

FJUN

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: 1.03%
• YTD: 4.64%
• 6M: 5.30%
• 1Y: 13.82%
• 3Y*: 14.38%
• 5Y*: 11.05%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 5.64%
• 6M: 5.65%
• 1Y: 13.85%
• 3Y*: 14.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FJUN vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FJUN FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June	4.64%	11.05%	16.38%	14.79%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between FJUN and BDGS is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.75

The correlation between FJUN and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

FJUN vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FJUN	BDGS
Technology	36.2%	37.4%
Financial Services	11.9%	9.3%
Communication Services	10.9%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.9%
Healthcare	8.4%	7.5%
Industrials	8.1%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.1%
Energy	3.5%	2.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.9%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.5%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.5%

Return for Risk

FJUN vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FJUN

FJUN Risk / Return Rank: 77
FJUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
FJUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
FJUN Omega Ratio Rank: 81
FJUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FJUN Martin Ratio Rank: 88

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 74
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

FJUN vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) 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.

	FJUN	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	2.29	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	3.40	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.47	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.36	3.45	-0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.98	16.47	+2.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FJUN vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FJUN Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FJUN 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

	FJUN	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	2.29	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	1.76	-0.59

Drawdowns

FJUN vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FJUN drawdown since its inception was -13.26%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FJUN and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FJUN	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.26%	-9.12%	-4.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.13%	-4.03%	-0.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.26%	-9.12%	-4.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.18%	-0.83%	+0.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.67%	-0.64%	-1.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.73%	0.84%	-0.11%

Volatility

FJUN vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June (FJUN) is 0.41%, while Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) has a volatility of 1.14%. This indicates that FJUN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BDGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FJUN	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.41%	1.14%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.35%	4.74%	-0.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.11%	6.08%	+0.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.55%	8.21%	+2.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.27%	8.21%	+2.06%

FJUN vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FJUN vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FJUN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
FJUN FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - June	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FJUN and BDGS in my portfolio?

FJUN and BDGS have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FJUN or BDGS?

BDGS has higher volatility (1.14%) compared to FJUN (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FJUN dropped -13.26% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FJUN or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, FJUN leads with 14.38% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, FJUN is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, FJUN has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FJUN or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, FJUN has performed better with a 14.38% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FJUN or BDGS?

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

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.00% for FJUN.

What is the main difference between FJUN and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for FJUN and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 2.28), 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.