FLCC vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLCC (Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Federated, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLCC returned 19.38% vs 11.29% for BDGS. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FLCC charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FLCC vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) 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, FLCC achieves a 11.69% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.44% return.

FLCC

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 2.73%
• 6M: 11.02%
• YTD: 11.69%
• 1Y: 19.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.45%

BDGS

• 1D: 1.04%
• 1M: 0.33%
• 6M: 5.03%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 1Y: 11.29%
• 3Y*: 13.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.44%

*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	$54.06K	$102.41K	$187.59K
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF	$1.25M	$873.05K	$785.28K

FLCC vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF	11.69%	16.61%	9.68%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.44%	10.61%	8.04%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCC and BDGS is 0.76, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2024	0.78

The correlation between FLCC and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCC vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCC	BDGS
Technology	38.2%	38.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	12.2%
Financial Services	11.1%	9.3%
Healthcare	10.2%	7.1%
Industrials	10.1%	6.8%
Communication Services	8.6%	15.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	3.6%
Energy	2.2%	2.4%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.3%
Utilities	1.4%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.5%

Return for Risk

FLCC vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCC

FLCC Risk / Return Rank: 57
FLCC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FLCC Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
FLCC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FLCC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
FLCC Martin Ratio Rank: 63

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 73
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

FLCC vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) 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.

	FLCC	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	1.59	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	2.45	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.32	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	2.38	-0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.09	10.11	-2.02

FLCC vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCC Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCC 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

FLCC vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCC drawdown since its inception was -19.18%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCC and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCC	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.18%	-9.12%	-10.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.31%	-4.76%	-4.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.01%	+1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-0.69%	-1.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	1.12%	+1.28%

Volatility

FLCC vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) have volatilities of 3.23% and 3.39%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCC	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.23%	3.39%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.15%	6.19%	+3.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.16%	7.13%	+6.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.07%	8.31%	+8.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.07%	8.31%	+8.76%

FLCC vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FLCC vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FLCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.45%, less than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF	0.45%	0.50%	0.20%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCC and BDGS in my portfolio?

FLCC and BDGS have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLCC or BDGS?

BDGS has higher volatility (3.39%) compared to FLCC (3.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCC dropped -19.18% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FLCC or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, FLCC leads with 19.38% vs 11.29% for BDGS. On fees, FLCC is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, FLCC has been the lower-risk option at 3.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCC or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, FLCC has performed better with a 19.38% return vs 11.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCC or BDGS?

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

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.45% for FLCC.

What is the main difference between FLCC and BDGS?

FLCC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Federated and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLCC and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 1.48), 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.