PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ROE vs. BGIG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ROE vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ROE achieves a 19.29% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 10.12% return.


ROE

1D
-2.17%
1M
2.62%
YTD
19.29%
6M
17.72%
1Y
35.20%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BGIG

1D
-0.25%
1M
-0.02%
YTD
10.12%
6M
9.82%
1Y
19.97%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ROE vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
ROE
Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF
19.29%17.20%18.34%8.12%
BGIG
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF
10.12%12.49%16.84%3.57%

Correlation

The correlation between ROE and BGIG is 0.68, 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

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023

0.80

The correlation between ROE and BGIG shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ROE vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ROE
BGIG

Technology

40.3%
25.7%

Financial Services

10.6%
14.4%

Communication Services

10.4%
0.8%

Consumer Cyclical

8.9%
4.8%

Industrials

8.7%
10.3%

Healthcare

8.1%
15.2%

Consumer Defensive

4.3%
6.8%

Energy

3.3%
10.2%

Utilities

2.0%
7.2%

Real Estate

1.8%
3.8%

Basic Materials

1.7%
0.6%

Technology

ROE
40.3%
BGIG
25.7%

Financial Services

ROE
10.6%
BGIG
14.4%

Communication Services

ROE
10.4%
BGIG
0.8%

Consumer Cyclical

ROE
8.9%
BGIG
4.8%

Industrials

ROE
8.7%
BGIG
10.3%

Healthcare

ROE
8.1%
BGIG
15.2%

Consumer Defensive

ROE
4.3%
BGIG
6.8%

Energy

ROE
3.3%
BGIG
10.2%

Utilities

ROE
2.0%
BGIG
7.2%

Real Estate

ROE
1.8%
BGIG
3.8%

Basic Materials

ROE
1.7%
BGIG
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ROE vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ROE
ROE Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
ROE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ROE Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
ROE Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
ROE Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
ROE Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank

BGIG
BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ROE vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.


ROEBGIGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.40

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.09

3.45

+0.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.99

13.32

+4.67

ROE vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ROE Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ROE and BGIG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

ROE vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ROE drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROE and BGIG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ROEBGIGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-19.10%

-13.24%

-5.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.66%

-5.81%

-2.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.17%

-0.65%

-1.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.57%

-1.75%

-0.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.96%

1.50%

+0.46%

Volatility

ROE vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) has a higher volatility of 6.40% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.46%. This indicates that ROE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ROEBGIGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.40%

2.46%

+3.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.76%

6.74%

+5.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.84%

9.05%

+5.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.99%

11.90%

+4.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.99%

11.90%

+4.09%

ROE vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ROE has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

ROE vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

ROE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, less than BGIG's 1.74% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
BGIG
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF
1.74%1.89%2.02%0.78%
ROE
Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF
0.95%0.97%1.18%0.68%

Frequently Asked Questions


ROE and BGIG have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ROE has higher volatility (6.40%) compared to BGIG (2.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ROE dropped -19.10% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

On 1-year performance, ROE leads with 35.20% vs 19.97% for BGIG. On fees, BGIG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ROE has performed better with a 35.20% return vs 19.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BGIG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ROE.

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 0.95% for ROE.

They also come from different issuers: Astoria and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ROE and 0.45% for BGIG.

ROE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.22), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ROE and BGIG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer