GUSA vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GUSA (Goldman Sachs MarketBeta U.S. 1000 Equity ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. GUSA is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GUSA returned 22.23%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for BDGS. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GUSA charges 0.11%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

GUSA vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs MarketBeta U.S. 1000 Equity ETF (GUSA) 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, GUSA achieves a 10.84% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.64% return.

GUSA

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 5.16%
• YTD: 10.84%
• 6M: 10.82%
• 1Y: 27.69%
• 3Y*: 22.23%
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

GUSA vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GUSA Goldman Sachs MarketBeta U.S. 1000 Equity ETF	10.84%	17.51%	24.46%	17.16%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between GUSA and BDGS is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.78

The correlation between GUSA and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

GUSA vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GUSA	BDGS
Technology	34.0%	37.4%
Financial Services	11.6%	9.3%
Communication Services	11.1%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.3%	10.9%
Industrials	9.4%	6.6%
Healthcare	8.8%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	4.1%
Energy	3.6%	2.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.9%
Real Estate	2.2%	1.5%
Basic Materials	2.0%	1.5%

Return for Risk

GUSA vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GUSA

GUSA Risk / Return Rank: 69
GUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
GUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
GUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 69
GUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

GUSA vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta U.S. 1000 Equity ETF (GUSA) 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.

	GUSA	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	2.29	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.12	3.40	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.47	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.09	3.45	-0.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.20	16.47	-2.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GUSA vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GUSA Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GUSA 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

	GUSA	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	2.29	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.88	1.76	-0.88

Drawdowns

GUSA vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GUSA drawdown since its inception was -19.61%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GUSA and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GUSA	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.61%	-9.12%	-10.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.01%	-4.03%	-4.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.61%	-9.12%	-10.49%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.62%	-0.83%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-0.64%	-3.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.95%	0.84%	+1.11%

Volatility

GUSA vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs MarketBeta U.S. 1000 Equity ETF (GUSA) has a higher volatility of 3.09% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.14%. This indicates that GUSA'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

	GUSA	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.09%	1.14%	+1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.29%	4.74%	+4.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.21%	6.08%	+6.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.27%	8.21%	+9.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.27%	8.21%	+9.06%

GUSA vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GUSA has a 0.11% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

GUSA vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

GUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%
GUSA Goldman Sachs MarketBeta U.S. 1000 Equity ETF	0.96%	0.99%	1.16%	1.36%	1.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GUSA and BDGS in my portfolio?

GUSA and BDGS have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GUSA or BDGS?

GUSA has higher volatility (3.09%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GUSA dropped -19.61% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, GUSA or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, GUSA leads with 22.23% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, GUSA is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GUSA or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, GUSA has performed better with a 22.23% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GUSA or BDGS?

GUSA is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

GUSA has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between GUSA and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.11% for GUSA and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 2.28), 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.