FNGD vs. BDGS

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%), while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. FNGD is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNGD returned -65.19%/yr vs 13.83%/yr for BDGS. At a correlation of -0.76, they often move in opposite directions. FNGD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FNGD vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) 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, FNGD achieves a -35.56% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 5.76% return.

FNGD

• 1D: 2.44%
• 1M: -11.47%
• 6M: -35.07%
• YTD: -35.56%
• 1Y: -49.24%
• 3Y*: -65.19%
• 5Y*: -62.88%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 1.03%
• 6M: 5.24%
• YTD: 5.76%
• 1Y: 11.67%
• 3Y*: 13.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGD vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-35.56%	-61.42%	-76.57%	-65.11%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.76%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGD and BDGS is -0.88, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	-0.76

The correlation between FNGD and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from -0.88 (1 year) to -0.76 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGD vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGD	BDGS
Technology	63.4%	37.4%
Communication Services	26.0%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	10.9%
Financial Services	10.0%	9.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.1%
Energy	-	2.6%
Healthcare	-	7.5%
Industrials	-	6.6%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

FNGD vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGD

FNGD Risk / Return Rank: 3
FNGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FNGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 76
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 79
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

FNGD vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) 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.

	FNGD	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.76	1.84	-2.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.00	2.76	-3.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.89	1.37	-0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	2.91	-3.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.52	11.86	-13.38

FNGD vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGD Sharpe Ratio is -0.76, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGD 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

FNGD vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGD drawdown since its inception was -100.00%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGD and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGD	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-100.00%	-9.12%	-90.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.92%	-4.03%	-61.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-97.35%	-9.12%	-88.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.67%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-100.00%	-0.71%	-99.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-87.38%	-0.67%	-86.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	32.60%	0.99%	+31.61%

Volatility

FNGD vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) has a higher volatility of 25.56% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.36%. This indicates that FNGD'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

	FNGD	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	25.56%	2.36%	+23.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	53.43%	5.28%	+48.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	65.22%	6.37%	+58.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	89.65%	8.19%	+81.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.07%	8.19%	+82.88%

FNGD vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGD vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FNGD 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%
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGD and BDGS in my portfolio?

FNGD and BDGS have a correlation of -0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGD or BDGS?

FNGD has higher volatility (25.56%) compared to BDGS (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGD dropped -100.00% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FNGD or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.83% vs -65.19% for FNGD. On fees, BDGS is cheaper at 0.87% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGD or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.83% return vs -65.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGD or BDGS?

BDGS is cheaper with a 0.87% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FNGD.

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

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

What is the main difference between FNGD and BDGS?

FNGD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for FNGD and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs -0.76), 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.