RHRX vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RHRX (RH Tactical Rotation ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RHRX returned 18.76%/yr vs 13.19%/yr for BDGS. Their 0.69 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RHRX charges 1.36%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

RHRX vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) 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, RHRX achieves a 16.73% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.35% return.

RHRX

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: -1.00%
• 6M: 14.17%
• YTD: 16.73%
• 1Y: 30.09%
• 3Y*: 18.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.77%

BDGS

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -0.71%
• 6M: 4.08%
• YTD: 4.35%
• 1Y: 10.14%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.11%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	$35.83K	$93.96K	$183.58K
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	$188.47K	$260.91K	$203.87K

RHRX vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	16.73%	16.70%	22.21%	9.13%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between RHRX and BDGS is 0.71, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.69

The correlation between RHRX and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

RHRX vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RHRX	BDGS
Technology	39.5%	38.9%
Industrials	14.9%	6.8%
Financial Services	9.2%	9.3%
Basic Materials	8.4%	1.3%
Healthcare	6.7%	7.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.5%	12.2%
Communication Services	5.2%	15.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	3.6%
Energy	2.7%	2.4%
Utilities	1.9%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.4%	1.5%

Return for Risk

RHRX vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RHRX

RHRX Risk / Return Rank: 84
RHRX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RHRX Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
RHRX Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RHRX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RHRX Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 64
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 66
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RHRX vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) 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.

	RHRX	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.38	+0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.12	+0.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.28	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	2.04	+2.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.62	8.70	+3.92

RHRX vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RHRX Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is higher than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RHRX 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

RHRX vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RHRX drawdown since its inception was -25.33%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RHRX and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RHRX	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.33%	-9.12%	-16.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.83%	-4.76%	-2.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.90%	-9.12%	-12.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.39%	-2.03%	-2.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.75%	-0.69%	-8.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	1.12%	+1.09%

Volatility

RHRX vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) and Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) have volatilities of 3.30% and 3.21%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RHRX	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.30%	3.21%	+0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.33%	6.11%	+5.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.43%	7.06%	+7.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.98%	8.30%	+10.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.98%	8.30%	+10.68%

RHRX vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RHRX has a 1.36% expense ratio, which is higher than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

RHRX vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

RHRX has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BDGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RHRX and BDGS in my portfolio?

RHRX and BDGS have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RHRX or BDGS?

RHRX has higher volatility (3.30%) compared to BDGS (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RHRX dropped -25.33% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, RHRX or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, RHRX leads with 18.76% vs 13.19% for BDGS. On fees, BDGS is cheaper at 0.87% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RHRX or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, RHRX has performed better with a 18.76% return vs 13.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RHRX or BDGS?

BDGS is cheaper with a 0.87% expense ratio, compared with 1.36% for RHRX.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.00% for RHRX.

What is the main difference between RHRX and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Adaptive and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 1.36% for RHRX and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RHRX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.38), 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.