NACP vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NACP (Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NACP is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Minority Empowerment Index, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. NACP is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, NACP returned 25.74%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NACP charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

NACP vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP) 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, NACP achieves a 20.21% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.21% return.

NACP

• 1D: -2.21%
• 1M: 1.73%
• YTD: 20.21%
• 6M: 17.87%
• 1Y: 39.41%
• 3Y*: 25.74%
• 5Y*: 15.31%
• 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)

NACP vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NACP Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF	20.21%	21.38%	23.93%	17.79%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between NACP and BDGS is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.76

The correlation between NACP and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

NACP vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NACP	BDGS
Technology	41.3%	37.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	10.9%
Financial Services	9.5%	9.3%
Communication Services	9.0%	16.6%
Healthcare	8.5%	7.5%
Industrials	8.0%	6.6%
Energy	4.3%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	4.1%
Utilities	3.0%	1.9%
Basic Materials	1.4%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.5%

Return for Risk

NACP vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

NACP

NACP Risk / Return Rank: 84
NACP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
NACP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
NACP Omega Ratio Rank: 82
NACP Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
NACP Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

NACP vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP) 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.

	NACP	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	1.84	+0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	2.75	+0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.37	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.10	2.90	+1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.54	12.72	+4.82

NACP vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NACP Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is higher than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NACP 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

NACP vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NACP drawdown since its inception was -30.96%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NACP and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	NACP	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.96%	-9.12%	-21.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.65%	-4.03%	-5.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.66%	-9.12%	-10.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.27%	-2.17%	-0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.72%	-0.66%	-5.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.25%	0.92%	+1.33%

Volatility

NACP vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP) has a higher volatility of 6.98% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that NACP'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

	NACP	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.98%	2.30%	+4.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.73%	5.17%	+7.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.25%	6.38%	+8.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.69%	8.22%	+9.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.77%	8.22%	+10.55%

NACP vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

NACP has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

NACP vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

NACP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NACP Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF	0.56%	0.62%	2.96%	1.28%	3.48%	3.06%	1.48%	1.22%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NACP and BDGS in my portfolio?

NACP 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, NACP or BDGS?

NACP has higher volatility (6.98%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NACP dropped -30.96% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, NACP or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, NACP leads with 25.74% vs 13.42% for BDGS. On fees, NACP is cheaper at 0.49% 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, NACP or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, NACP has performed better with a 25.74% return vs 13.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NACP or BDGS?

NACP is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

NACP has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between NACP and BDGS?

NACP is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Impact Shares and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for NACP and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NACP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 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.