FMIL vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FMIL (Fidelity New Millennium ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FMIL returned 22.21%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMIL charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FMIL vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) 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, FMIL achieves a 9.17% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.21% return.

FMIL

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 9.17%
• 6M: 8.34%
• 1Y: 24.45%
• 3Y*: 22.21%
• 5Y*: 16.06%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 4.21%
• 6M: 3.97%
• 1Y: 11.63%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FMIL vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	9.17%	17.67%	27.89%	17.33%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between FMIL 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 11, 2023	0.77

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

FMIL vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMIL	BDGS
Technology	32.5%	37.4%
Financial Services	11.6%	9.3%
Industrials	11.5%	6.6%
Communication Services	10.9%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.7%	10.9%
Healthcare	8.1%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	4.1%
Energy	4.4%	2.6%
Utilities	2.6%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.5%

Return for Risk

FMIL vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMIL

FMIL Risk / Return Rank: 57
FMIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FMIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
FMIL Omega Ratio Rank: 56
FMIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
FMIL Martin Ratio Rank: 64

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 62
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

FMIL vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) 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.

	FMIL	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	1.84	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.49	2.75	-0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.37	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	2.90	-0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.96	12.72	-1.76

FMIL vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMIL Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMIL 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

FMIL vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMIL drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMIL and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMIL	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.72%	-9.12%	-10.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.98%	-4.03%	-5.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.72%	-9.12%	-10.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.37%	-2.17%	-0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.98%	-0.66%	-2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.24%	0.92%	+1.32%

Volatility

FMIL vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) has a higher volatility of 5.32% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that FMIL'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

	FMIL	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	2.30%	+3.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.71%	5.17%	+5.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.56%	6.38%	+7.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.00%	8.22%	+8.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	8.22%	+9.47%

FMIL vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMIL has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMIL vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FMIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	1.01%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMIL and BDGS in my portfolio?

FMIL 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, FMIL or BDGS?

FMIL has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMIL dropped -19.72% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FMIL or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, FMIL leads with 22.21% vs 13.42% for BDGS. On fees, FMIL is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMIL or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, FMIL has performed better with a 22.21% return vs 13.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMIL or BDGS?

FMIL is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

FMIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between FMIL and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FMIL and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.81), 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.