MFSV vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

MFSV (MFS Active Value ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MFSV returned 14.91% vs 19.33% for BGIG. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MFSV charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

MFSV vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MFS Active Value ETF (MFSV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFSV achieves a 7.36% return, which is significantly lower than BGIG's 10.27% return.

MFSV

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 2.12%
• YTD: 7.36%
• 6M: 6.12%
• 1Y: 14.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BGIG

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 9.44%
• 1Y: 19.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MFSV vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MFSV MFS Active Value ETF	7.36%	13.63%	-4.62%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	10.27%	12.49%	-2.66%

Correlation

The correlation between MFSV and BGIG is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2024	0.84

The correlation between MFSV and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MFSV vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFSV

MFSV Risk / Return Rank: 49
MFSV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
MFSV Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
MFSV Omega Ratio Rank: 43
MFSV Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
MFSV Martin Ratio Rank: 53

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 77
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 75
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BGIG 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.

MFSV vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Value ETF (MFSV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	MFSV	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	2.15	-0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	3.09	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.39	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	3.34	-0.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.09	12.90	-4.81

MFSV vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFSV Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is lower than the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFSV and BGIG, 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

MFSV vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFSV drawdown since its inception was -12.74%, roughly equal to the maximum BGIG drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSV and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFSV	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.74%	-13.24%	+0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	-5.81%	-0.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.15%	-0.51%	-0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.87%	-1.75%	-0.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.85%	1.50%	+0.35%

Volatility

MFSV vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

MFS Active Value ETF (MFSV) has a higher volatility of 3.13% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.37%. This indicates that MFSV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFSV	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.13%	2.37%	+0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.82%	6.74%	+1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.45%	9.03%	+1.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.66%	11.89%	+1.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.66%	11.89%	+1.77%

MFSV vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFSV has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFSV vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

MFSV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than BGIG's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.74%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%
MFSV MFS Active Value ETF	1.47%	1.53%	0.11%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MFSV and BGIG in my portfolio?

MFSV and BGIG have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MFSV or BGIG?

MFSV has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to BGIG (2.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSV dropped -12.74% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, MFSV or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, BGIG leads with 19.33% vs 14.91% for MFSV. On fees, MFSV is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFSV or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, BGIG has performed better with a 19.33% return vs 14.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFSV or BGIG?

MFSV is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MFSV or BGIG?

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.47% for MFSV.

What is the main difference between MFSV and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: MFS and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for MFSV and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGIG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.44), 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.