JHML vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

JHML (John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JHML is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the John Hancock Dimensional Large Cap Index, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. JHML is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, JHML returned 19.33%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JHML charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

JHML vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) 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, JHML achieves a 10.19% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.21% return.

JHML

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 10.19%
• 6M: 9.22%
• 1Y: 23.99%
• 3Y*: 19.33%
• 5Y*: 11.53%
• 10Y*: 14.35%

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)

JHML vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JHML John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF	10.19%	15.91%	19.84%	15.46%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between JHML and BDGS is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.73

The correlation between JHML and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

JHML vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JHML	BDGS
Technology	31.2%	37.4%
Financial Services	13.1%	9.3%
Industrials	11.6%	6.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	10.9%
Healthcare	8.9%	7.5%
Communication Services	8.1%	16.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	4.1%
Energy	3.9%	2.6%
Utilities	3.6%	1.9%
Basic Materials	2.7%	1.5%
Real Estate	2.3%	1.5%

Return for Risk

JHML vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

JHML

JHML Risk / Return Rank: 68
JHML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
JHML Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
JHML Omega Ratio Rank: 66
JHML Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
JHML Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

JHML vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) 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.

	JHML	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	1.84	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.80	2.75	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.37	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.03	2.90	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.73	12.72	+1.01

JHML vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JHML Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JHML 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

JHML vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JHML drawdown since its inception was -36.13%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHML and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	JHML	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.13%	-9.12%	-27.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.95%	-4.03%	-3.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.20%	-9.12%	-9.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.47%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.13%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.93%	-2.17%	+0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.28%	-0.66%	-3.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.75%	0.92%	+0.83%

Volatility

JHML vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) has a higher volatility of 4.39% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that JHML'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

	JHML	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.39%	2.30%	+2.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.42%	5.17%	+4.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.99%	6.38%	+5.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.36%	8.22%	+8.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.77%	8.22%	+9.55%

JHML vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

JHML has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

JHML vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

JHML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, 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%
JHML John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF	0.96%	1.06%	1.16%	1.39%	1.46%	1.08%	1.59%	1.73%	1.57%	1.44%	1.36%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JHML and BDGS in my portfolio?

JHML and BDGS have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JHML or BDGS?

JHML has higher volatility (4.39%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHML dropped -36.13% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, JHML or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, JHML leads with 19.33% vs 13.42% for BDGS. On fees, JHML is cheaper at 0.29% 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, JHML or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, JHML has performed better with a 19.33% return vs 13.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JHML or BDGS?

JHML is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

JHML has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between JHML and BDGS?

JHML is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Manulife and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for JHML and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JHML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.84), 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.