PRCS vs. BDGS
PRCS (Parnassus Core Select ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PRCS returned 12.71% vs 13.85% for BDGS. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PRCS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.
Performance
PRCS vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PRCS achieves a 2.88% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 5.64% return.
PRCS
- 1D
- -0.46%
- 1M
- 1.15%
- YTD
- 2.88%
- 6M
- 2.48%
- 1Y
- 12.71%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BDGS
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- 1.26%
- YTD
- 5.64%
- 6M
- 5.65%
- 1Y
- 13.85%
- 3Y*
- 14.06%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PRCS vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
PRCS Parnassus Core Select ETF | 2.88% | 11.69% | -3.56% |
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF | 5.64% | 10.61% | -0.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between PRCS and BDGS is 0.69, 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 | 0.69 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2024 | 0.74 |
The correlation between PRCS and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
PRCS vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank
PRCS
BDGS
PRCS vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Parnassus Core Select ETF (PRCS) 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.
| PRCS | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.93 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.47 | -0.29 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.00 | 3.45 | -2.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.94 | 16.47 | -12.53 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PRCS | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.02 | 2.29 | -1.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.43 | 1.76 | -1.32 |
Drawdowns
PRCS vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PRCS drawdown since its inception was -18.20%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PRCS and BDGS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PRCS | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.20% | -9.12% | -9.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.77% | -4.03% | -8.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -9.12% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.89% | -0.83% | -0.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.00% | -0.64% | -2.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.23% | 0.84% | +2.39% |
Volatility
PRCS vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison
Parnassus Core Select ETF (PRCS) has a higher volatility of 2.40% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.14%. This indicates that PRCS'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PRCS | BDGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.40% | 1.14% | +1.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.78% | 4.74% | +5.04% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.52% | 6.08% | +6.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.86% | 8.21% | +8.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.86% | 8.21% | +8.65% |
PRCS vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison
PRCS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.
Dividends
PRCS vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison
PRCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than BDGS's 0.52% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF | 0.52% | 0.55% | 1.81% | 0.84% |
PRCS Parnassus Core Select ETF | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PRCS and BDGS have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PRCS has higher volatility (2.40%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PRCS dropped -18.20% vs BDGS's -9.12%.
On 1-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.85% vs 12.71% for PRCS. On fees, PRCS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.85% return vs 12.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PRCS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.
BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.13% for PRCS.
They also come from different issuers: Parnassus and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for PRCS and 0.87% for BDGS.
BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.02), 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.
Find the right allocation for PRCS and BDGS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer