FTCS vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FTCS (First Trust Capital Strength ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. FTCS is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FTCS returned 9.52%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FTCS charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

FTCS vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Capital Strength ETF (FTCS) 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, FTCS achieves a 1.20% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 4.21% return.

FTCS

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: -1.25%
• YTD: 1.20%
• 6M: 0.40%
• 1Y: 5.00%
• 3Y*: 9.52%
• 5Y*: 5.84%
• 10Y*: 10.48%

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)

FTCS vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FTCS First Trust Capital Strength ETF	1.20%	6.46%	11.19%	10.78%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between FTCS and BDGS is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.40

The correlation between FTCS and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (1 year) to 0.40 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FTCS vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FTCS	BDGS
Financial Services	20.0%	9.3%
Industrials	19.6%	6.6%
Healthcare	18.5%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	14.2%	4.1%
Technology	13.6%	37.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	10.9%
Communication Services	2.3%	16.6%
Energy	2.1%	2.6%
Basic Materials	2.1%	1.5%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

FTCS vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTCS

FTCS Risk / Return Rank: 16
FTCS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FTCS Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FTCS Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FTCS Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
FTCS Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

FTCS vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Capital Strength ETF (FTCS) 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.

	FTCS	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.51	1.84	-1.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.81	2.75	-1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.37	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.65	2.90	-2.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.49	12.72	-11.23

FTCS vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTCS Sharpe Ratio is 0.51, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTCS 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

FTCS vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTCS drawdown since its inception was -53.64%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTCS and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTCS	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.64%	-9.12%	-44.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.74%	-4.03%	-3.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.62%	-9.12%	-3.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.93%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-31.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.85%	-2.17%	-3.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.92%	-0.66%	-6.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	0.92%	+2.44%

Volatility

FTCS vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Capital Strength ETF (FTCS) has a higher volatility of 3.07% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that FTCS'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

	FTCS	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.07%	2.30%	+0.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.25%	5.17%	+2.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.95%	6.38%	+3.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.14%	8.22%	+4.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.53%	8.22%	+7.31%

FTCS vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTCS has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTCS vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

FTCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FTCS First Trust Capital Strength ETF	1.11%	1.04%	1.33%	1.47%	1.23%	1.06%	0.93%	1.26%	1.26%	1.15%	1.43%	1.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FTCS and BDGS in my portfolio?

FTCS and BDGS have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FTCS or BDGS?

FTCS has higher volatility (3.07%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTCS dropped -53.64% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, FTCS or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.42% vs 9.52% for FTCS. On fees, FTCS is cheaper at 0.53% 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, FTCS or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.42% return vs 9.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTCS or BDGS?

FTCS is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

FTCS has the higher dividend yield at 1.11%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between FTCS and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for FTCS and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.51), 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.