RECS vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while BDGS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Bridges. RECS is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RECS returned 20.55%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for BDGS. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RECS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

RECS vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) 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, RECS achieves a 4.95% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.21% return.

RECS

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -0.92%
• YTD: 4.95%
• 6M: 3.98%
• 1Y: 21.27%
• 3Y*: 20.55%
• 5Y*: 13.53%
• 10Y*: 9.72%

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)

RECS vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	4.95%	19.30%	26.27%	15.11%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.21%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and BDGS is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.74

The correlation between RECS and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

RECS vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RECS	BDGS
Technology	32.9%	37.4%
Financial Services	16.9%	9.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	10.9%
Healthcare	9.2%	7.5%
Communication Services	7.6%	16.6%
Industrials	7.3%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	4.1%
Energy	3.5%	2.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.9%
Real Estate	2.3%	1.5%
Basic Materials	2.2%	1.5%

Return for Risk

RECS vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 55
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

RECS vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) 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.

	RECS	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	1.84	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.47	2.75	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.37	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	2.90	-0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.23	12.72	-2.49

RECS vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS 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

RECS vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RECS	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.29%	-9.12%	-25.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-4.03%	-4.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	-9.12%	-9.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.48%	-2.17%	-0.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-0.66%	-0.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	0.92%	+1.16%

Volatility

RECS vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) has a higher volatility of 3.90% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that RECS'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

	RECS	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.90%	2.30%	+1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.38%	5.17%	+4.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.11%	6.38%	+5.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.43%	8.22%	+8.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.26%	8.22%	+8.04%

RECS vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

RECS vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.06%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RECS and BDGS in my portfolio?

RECS and BDGS have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RECS or BDGS?

RECS has higher volatility (3.90%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, RECS or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, RECS leads with 20.55% vs 13.42% for BDGS. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% 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, RECS or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, RECS has performed better with a 20.55% return vs 13.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RECS or BDGS?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

RECS has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between RECS and BDGS?

RECS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while BDGS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.77), 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.