RNDV vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RNDV (US Equity Dividend Select ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RNDV is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RNDV returned 17.67%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for BDGS. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RNDV charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

RNDV vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in US Equity Dividend Select ETF (RNDV) 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, RNDV achieves a 16.69% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.64% return.

RNDV

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: 8.04%
• YTD: 16.69%
• 6M: 16.73%
• 1Y: 31.60%
• 3Y*: 17.67%
• 5Y*: 9.28%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 5.64%
• 6M: 5.65%
• 1Y: 13.85%
• 3Y*: 14.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RNDV vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RNDV US Equity Dividend Select ETF	16.69%	14.27%	11.05%	13.48%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between RNDV and BDGS is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.51

The correlation between RNDV and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (1 year) to 0.51 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RNDV vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNDV	BDGS
Technology	34.0%	37.4%
Healthcare	13.6%	7.5%
Financial Services	10.7%	9.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.7%	10.9%
Industrials	9.4%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.8%	4.1%
Energy	5.0%	2.6%
Communication Services	4.8%	16.6%
Utilities	2.6%	1.9%
Real Estate	2.4%	1.5%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.5%

Return for Risk

RNDV vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNDV

RNDV Risk / Return Rank: 69
RNDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
RNDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RNDV Omega Ratio Rank: 69
RNDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
RNDV Martin Ratio Rank: 63

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 74
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

RNDV vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for US Equity Dividend Select ETF (RNDV) 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.

	RNDV	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.29	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.33	3.40	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.47	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	3.45	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.35	16.47	-5.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RNDV vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNDV Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNDV 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RNDV	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	2.29	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	1.76	-1.14

Drawdowns

RNDV vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNDV drawdown since its inception was -37.44%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNDV and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNDV	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.44%	-9.12%	-28.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.41%	-4.03%	-5.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.70%	-9.12%	-10.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.71%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.01%	-0.83%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.87%	-0.64%	-4.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.79%	0.84%	+1.95%

Volatility

RNDV vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

US Equity Dividend Select ETF (RNDV) has a higher volatility of 3.82% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.14%. This indicates that RNDV'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

	RNDV	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.82%	1.14%	+2.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.90%	4.74%	+5.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.58%	6.08%	+7.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.12%	8.21%	+7.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.87%	8.21%	+10.66%

RNDV vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNDV has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNDV vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

RNDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.33%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RNDV US Equity Dividend Select ETF	2.33%	2.70%	2.55%	3.10%	2.52%	1.95%	2.44%	2.85%	4.09%	1.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNDV and BDGS in my portfolio?

RNDV and BDGS have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNDV or BDGS?

RNDV has higher volatility (3.82%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNDV dropped -37.44% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, RNDV or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, RNDV leads with 17.67% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, RNDV is cheaper at 0.50% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, RNDV or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, RNDV has performed better with a 17.67% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNDV or BDGS?

RNDV is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

RNDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.33%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between RNDV and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for RNDV and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.29), 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.