GMMA vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GMMA is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past year, GMMA returned 9.98% vs 12.32% for BDGS. Their 0.69 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GMMA charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

GMMA vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) 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, GMMA achieves a 5.54% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 6.84% return.

GMMA

• 1D: 1.25%
• 1M: 2.64%
• 6M: 4.47%
• YTD: 5.54%
• 1Y: 9.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.84%

BDGS

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: 1.66%
• 6M: 6.66%
• YTD: 6.84%
• 1Y: 12.32%
• 3Y*: 14.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.89%

*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	$60.13K	$101.09K	$187.57K
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	$3.27K	$2.85K	$4.08K

GMMA vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	5.54%	8.95%	0.22%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	6.84%	10.61%	5.56%

Correlation

The correlation between GMMA and BDGS is 0.74, 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.	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.69

The correlation between GMMA and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GMMA vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 62
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 66

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 72
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 75
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.

GMMA vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) 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.

	GMMA	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.71	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	2.65	-0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.35	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	2.60	+0.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.05	11.03	-1.98

GMMA vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMMA 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

GMMA vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMMA drawdown since its inception was -5.21%, smaller than the maximum BDGS drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMMA and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMMA	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.21%	-9.12%	+3.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.39%	-4.76%	+1.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.22%	-0.69%	-0.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.11%	1.12%	-0.01%

Volatility

GMMA vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) is 2.77%, while Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) has a volatility of 3.62%. This indicates that GMMA 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

	GMMA	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.77%	3.62%	-0.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.40%	6.32%	-0.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.55%	7.23%	-0.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.44%	8.34%	-0.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.44%	8.34%	-0.90%

GMMA vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMMA has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMMA vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

GMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.38%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.38%	3.00%	0.57%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMMA and BDGS in my portfolio?

GMMA and BDGS have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMMA or BDGS?

BDGS has higher volatility (3.62%) compared to GMMA (2.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMMA dropped -5.21% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, GMMA or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 12.32% vs 9.98% for GMMA. On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GMMA has been the lower-risk option at 2.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMMA or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 12.32% return vs 9.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMMA or BDGS?

GMMA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.38%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between GMMA and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: GammaRoad and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GMMA and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 1.55), 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.