JGRW vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

JGRW (Jensen Quality Growth ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JGRW returned 3.28% vs 12.84% for BDGS. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JGRW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

JGRW vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Jensen Quality Growth ETF (JGRW) 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, JGRW achieves a -2.19% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 4.55% return.

JGRW

• 1D: -1.38%
• 1M: -1.82%
• YTD: -2.19%
• 6M: -2.24%
• 1Y: 3.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 4.55%
• 6M: 4.54%
• 1Y: 12.84%
• 3Y*: 13.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JGRW vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JGRW Jensen Quality Growth ETF	-2.19%	5.07%	2.56%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.55%	10.61%	8.90%

Correlation

The correlation between JGRW and BDGS is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 13, 2024	0.68

The correlation between JGRW and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JGRW vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

JGRW

JGRW Risk / Return Rank: 11
JGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
JGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
JGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 11
JGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
JGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 13

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 70
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

JGRW vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Jensen Quality Growth ETF (JGRW) 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.

	JGRW	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.27	2.03	-1.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.46	3.03	-2.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.41	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.23	3.20	-2.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.80	14.21	-13.40

JGRW vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JGRW Sharpe Ratio is 0.27, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JGRW 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

JGRW vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JGRW drawdown since its inception was -14.64%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JGRW and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	JGRW	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.64%	-9.12%	-5.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.36%	-4.03%	-10.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.96%	-1.84%	-2.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.96%	-0.66%	-2.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	0.91%	+3.18%

Volatility

JGRW vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Jensen Quality Growth ETF (JGRW) has a higher volatility of 4.30% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.28%. This indicates that JGRW'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

	JGRW	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.30%	2.28%	+2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.09%	5.16%	+4.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.12%	6.38%	+5.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.45%	8.23%	+6.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.45%	8.23%	+6.22%

JGRW vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

JGRW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

JGRW vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

JGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
JGRW Jensen Quality Growth ETF	0.39%	0.54%	0.24%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JGRW and BDGS in my portfolio?

JGRW and BDGS have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JGRW or BDGS?

JGRW has higher volatility (4.30%) compared to BDGS (2.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JGRW dropped -14.64% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, JGRW or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 12.84% vs 3.28% for JGRW. On fees, JGRW is cheaper at 0.57% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JGRW or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 12.84% return vs 3.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JGRW or BDGS?

JGRW is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.39% for JGRW.

What is the main difference between JGRW and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Jensen and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for JGRW and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 0.27), 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.