FMAY vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMAY (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - May) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. FMAY is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FMAY returned 14.13%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for BDGS. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMAY charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FMAY 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 - May (FMAY) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FMAY having a 5.39% return and BDGS slightly higher at 5.64%.

FMAY

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 1.63%
• YTD: 5.39%
• 6M: 6.32%
• 1Y: 15.38%
• 3Y*: 14.13%
• 5Y*: 9.48%
• 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)

FMAY vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - May	5.39%	12.69%	14.45%	12.76%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAY and BDGS is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.77

The correlation between FMAY and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAY vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMAY	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

FMAY vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAY

FMAY Risk / Return Rank: 83
FMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
FMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

FMAY 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 - May (FMAY) 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.

	FMAY	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.56	2.29	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.80	3.40	+0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.47	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.66	3.45	+0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.48	16.47	+5.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FMAY vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAY 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

	FMAY	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.56	2.29	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.02	1.76	-0.74

Drawdowns

FMAY vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAY drawdown since its inception was -13.60%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAY and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAY	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.60%	-9.12%	-4.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.22%	-4.03%	-0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.12%	-9.12%	-4.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-0.83%	+0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.01%	-0.64%	-1.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.72%	0.84%	-0.12%

Volatility

FMAY vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - May (FMAY) is 1.02%, while Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) has a volatility of 1.14%. This indicates that FMAY 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

	FMAY	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.02%	1.14%	-0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.59%	4.74%	-0.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.04%	6.08%	-0.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.59%	8.21%	+2.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.15%	8.21%	+1.94%

FMAY vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FMAY vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FMAY 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%
FMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - May	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMAY and BDGS in my portfolio?

FMAY and BDGS have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMAY or BDGS?

BDGS has higher volatility (1.14%) compared to FMAY (1.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAY dropped -13.60% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FMAY or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, FMAY leads with 14.13% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, FMAY is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, FMAY has been the lower-risk option at 1.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAY or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, FMAY has performed better with a 14.13% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAY or BDGS?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FMAY and BDGS?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.29), 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.