RFFC vs. BDGS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS).

RFFC and BDGS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RFFC is an actively managed fund by SS&C. It was launched on Jun 7, 2016. BDGS is an actively managed fund by Bridges. It was launched on May 10, 2023.

Performance

RFFC vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

RFFC vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	-0.91%	16.83%	23.51%	15.62%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	-1.41%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFFC achieves a -0.91% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's -1.41% return.

RFFC

• 1D: 2.74%
• 1M: -5.66%
• YTD: -0.91%
• 6M: 3.63%
• 1Y: 20.16%
• 3Y*: 18.07%
• 5Y*: 10.98%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: 1.96%
• 1M: -1.14%
• YTD: -1.41%
• 6M: 0.11%
• 1Y: 10.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RFFC vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.85% expense ratio.

BDGS

Bridges Capital Tactical ETF

RFFC

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF

Return for Risk

RFFC vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFFC

RFFC Risk / Return Rank: 70
RFFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
RFFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RFFC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
RFFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
RFFC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 73
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

RFFC vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) 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.

	RFFC	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	0.99	+0.20
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	1.67	+0.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.28	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.76	1.80	-0.04
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.93	9.34	-1.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RFFC vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFFC and BDGS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RFFC	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.19	0.99	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	1.51	-0.86

Correlation

The correlation between RFFC and BDGS is 0.74, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

RFFC vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.81%, more than BDGS's 0.56% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	0.81%	0.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.41%	0.71%	1.79%	1.34%	1.36%	0.93%	0.66%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.56%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

RFFC vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFFC	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-9.12%	-27.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.73%	-5.85%	-5.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.77%	-2.15%	-4.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-0.67%	-4.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.60%	1.13%	+1.47%

Volatility

RFFC vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) has a higher volatility of 5.35% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.39%. This indicates that RFFC'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

	RFFC	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.35%	3.39%	+1.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.48%	5.09%	+4.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.08%	10.70%	+6.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.28%	8.35%	+7.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.05%	8.35%	+9.70%