LQAI vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LQAI (LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQAI is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LQAI returned 22.80% vs 10.14% for BDGS. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LQAI charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

LQAI vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF (LQAI) 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, LQAI achieves a 14.28% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.35% return.

LQAI

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: -3.16%
• 6M: 11.94%
• YTD: 14.28%
• 1Y: 22.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 24.41%

BDGS

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -0.71%
• 6M: 4.08%
• YTD: 4.35%
• 1Y: 10.14%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.11%

*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	$35.83K	$93.96K	$183.58K
LQAI LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF	$9.07K	$10.19K	$17.32K

LQAI vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LQAI LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF	14.28%	13.70%	27.82%	9.29%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	19.07%	5.16%

Correlation

The correlation between LQAI 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 Nov 7, 2023	0.74

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

LQAI vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LQAI	BDGS
Technology	43.2%	38.9%
Financial Services	11.7%	9.3%
Communication Services	10.9%	15.1%
Utilities	8.2%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	12.2%
Industrials	3.9%	6.8%
Healthcare	2.8%	7.1%
Energy	2.2%	2.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.5%
Basic Materials	0.1%	1.3%

Return for Risk

LQAI vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQAI

LQAI Risk / Return Rank: 47
LQAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
LQAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
LQAI Omega Ratio Rank: 45
LQAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
LQAI Martin Ratio Rank: 46

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 64
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

LQAI vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF (LQAI) 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.

	LQAI	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	1.38	-0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.61	2.12	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.28	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	2.04	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.30	8.70	-3.40

LQAI vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQAI Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQAI 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

LQAI vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQAI drawdown since its inception was -21.24%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQAI and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQAI	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.24%	-9.12%	-12.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.75%	-4.76%	-5.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.64%	-2.03%	-5.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.13%	-0.69%	-2.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.01%	1.12%	+2.89%

Volatility

LQAI vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF (LQAI) has a higher volatility of 6.78% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.21%. This indicates that LQAI'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

	LQAI	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.78%	3.21%	+3.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.24%	6.11%	+9.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.60%	7.06%	+11.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.81%	8.30%	+9.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.81%	8.30%	+9.51%

LQAI vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LQAI vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

LQAI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, 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%
LQAI LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF	0.95%	1.14%	0.69%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQAI and BDGS in my portfolio?

LQAI 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, LQAI or BDGS?

LQAI has higher volatility (6.78%) compared to BDGS (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQAI dropped -21.24% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, LQAI or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, LQAI leads with 22.80% vs 10.14% for BDGS. On fees, LQAI is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQAI or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, LQAI has performed better with a 22.80% return vs 10.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQAI or BDGS?

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

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

LQAI has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between LQAI and BDGS?

LQAI is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LQAI and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 1.15), 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.