PTNQ vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PTNQ (Pacer Trendpilot 100 ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. PTNQ is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PTNQ returned 13.52%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PTNQ charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Trendpilot 100 ETF (PTNQ) 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, PTNQ achieves a 9.62% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.21% return.

PTNQ

• 1D: -3.23%
• 1M: -0.25%
• YTD: 9.62%
• 6M: 8.18%
• 1Y: 26.55%
• 3Y*: 13.52%
• 5Y*: 10.45%
• 10Y*: 16.40%

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)

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PTNQ Pacer Trendpilot 100 ETF	9.62%	7.18%	15.47%	18.90%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between PTNQ and BDGS is 0.85, 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	0.85
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 PTNQ and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PTNQ vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PTNQ

PTNQ Risk / Return Rank: 46
PTNQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
PTNQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
PTNQ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
PTNQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
PTNQ Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Trendpilot 100 ETF (PTNQ) 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.

	PTNQ	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	1.84	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	2.75	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.37	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.27	2.90	-0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.49	12.72	-5.23

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PTNQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PTNQ 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

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PTNQ drawdown since its inception was -28.07%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PTNQ and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PTNQ	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.07%	-9.12%	-18.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.76%	-4.03%	-7.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.19%	-9.12%	-5.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.47%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.07%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.12%	-2.17%	-1.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.68%	-0.66%	-5.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.55%	0.92%	+2.63%

Volatility

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Trendpilot 100 ETF (PTNQ) has a higher volatility of 8.74% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that PTNQ'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

	PTNQ	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.74%	2.30%	+6.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.70%	5.17%	+8.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.37%	6.38%	+10.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.39%	8.22%	+5.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.51%	8.22%	+8.29%

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PTNQ has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

PTNQ vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

PTNQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.80%, 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%
PTNQ Pacer Trendpilot 100 ETF	0.80%	0.88%	1.96%	1.47%	0.62%	0.00%	0.16%	0.44%	0.45%	0.32%	0.30%	0.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PTNQ and BDGS in my portfolio?

PTNQ and BDGS have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PTNQ or BDGS?

PTNQ has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PTNQ dropped -28.07% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, PTNQ or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, PTNQ leads with 13.52% vs 13.42% for BDGS. On fees, PTNQ is cheaper at 0.65% 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, PTNQ or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, PTNQ has performed better with a 13.52% return vs 13.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PTNQ or BDGS?

PTNQ is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

PTNQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.80%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between PTNQ and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for PTNQ and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.54), 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.