JHAC vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

JHAC (John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JHAC returned 2.96% vs 11.63% for BDGS. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JHAC charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

JHAC vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF (JHAC) 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, JHAC achieves a -4.18% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 4.21% return.

JHAC

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: -3.16%
• YTD: -4.18%
• 6M: -6.35%
• 1Y: 2.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

JHAC vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JHAC John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF	-4.18%	3.33%	23.65%	15.81%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.32%

Correlation

The correlation between JHAC and BDGS is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 2, 2023	0.69

The correlation between JHAC and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

JHAC vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JHAC	BDGS
Technology	27.5%	37.4%
Consumer Cyclical	23.9%	10.9%
Financial Services	15.9%	9.3%
Communication Services	8.9%	16.6%
Industrials	6.5%	6.6%
Healthcare	6.3%	7.5%
Energy	4.9%	2.6%
Real Estate	3.5%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	4.1%
Basic Materials	1.1%	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

JHAC vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

JHAC

JHAC Risk / Return Rank: 11
JHAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
JHAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
JHAC Omega Ratio Rank: 11
JHAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
JHAC Martin Ratio Rank: 11

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.

JHAC vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF (JHAC) 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.

	JHAC	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.22	1.84	-1.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.39	2.75	-2.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.37	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.20	2.90	-2.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.59	12.72	-12.13

JHAC vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JHAC Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JHAC 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

JHAC vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JHAC drawdown since its inception was -24.43%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHAC and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	JHAC	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.43%	-9.12%	-15.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.24%	-4.03%	-11.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.74%	-2.17%	-5.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.94%	-0.66%	-3.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.03%	0.92%	+4.11%

Volatility

JHAC vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF (JHAC) has a higher volatility of 4.04% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that JHAC'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

	JHAC	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.04%	2.30%	+1.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.11%	5.17%	+4.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.49%	6.38%	+7.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.41%	8.22%	+9.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.41%	8.22%	+9.19%

JHAC vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

JHAC has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

JHAC vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

JHAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
JHAC John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF	0.60%	0.58%	0.66%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JHAC and BDGS in my portfolio?

JHAC and BDGS have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JHAC or BDGS?

JHAC has higher volatility (4.04%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHAC dropped -24.43% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, JHAC or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 11.63% vs 2.96% for JHAC. On fees, JHAC is cheaper at 0.72% 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, JHAC or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 11.63% return vs 2.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JHAC or BDGS?

JHAC is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

JHAC has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between JHAC and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: John Hancock and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for JHAC and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.22), 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.