RVER vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RVER (Trenchless Fund ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RVER is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by River1, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RVER returned 12.45% vs 10.14% for BDGS. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RVER charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

RVER vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) 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, RVER achieves a 9.01% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.35% return.

RVER

• 1D: 0.96%
• 1M: -2.55%
• 6M: 7.63%
• YTD: 9.01%
• 1Y: 12.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.49%

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
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	$328.24K	$287.25K	$279.54K

RVER vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	9.01%	5.68%	18.88%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	16.62%

Correlation

The correlation between RVER and BDGS is 0.66, 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.	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2024	0.66

The correlation between RVER and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

RVER vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RVER	BDGS
Technology	58.4%	38.9%
Consumer Cyclical	18.6%	12.2%
Basic Materials	11.6%	1.3%
Industrials	10.5%	6.8%
Energy	7.8%	2.4%
Healthcare	7.8%	7.1%
Communication Services	5.5%	15.1%
Utilities	5.4%	1.8%
Financial Services	3.5%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.6%
Real Estate	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

RVER vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RVER

RVER Risk / Return Rank: 21
RVER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
RVER Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
RVER Omega Ratio Rank: 21
RVER Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
RVER Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

RVER vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) 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.

	RVER	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.44	1.38	-0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.80	2.12	-1.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.28	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.50	2.04	-1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.26	8.70	-7.43

RVER vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RVER Sharpe Ratio is 0.44, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RVER 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

RVER vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RVER drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RVER and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RVER	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.21%	-9.12%	-17.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.61%	-4.76%	-16.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.41%	-2.03%	-8.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.11%	-0.69%	-5.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.54%	1.12%	+7.42%

Volatility

RVER vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) has a higher volatility of 8.55% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.21%. This indicates that RVER'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

	RVER	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.55%	3.21%	+5.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.01%	6.11%	+13.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.36%	7.06%	+17.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.42%	8.30%	+18.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.42%	8.30%	+18.12%

RVER vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RVER has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

RVER vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

RVER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	1.56%	1.71%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RVER and BDGS in my portfolio?

RVER and BDGS have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RVER or BDGS?

RVER has higher volatility (8.55%) compared to BDGS (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RVER dropped -26.21% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, RVER or BDGS?

On 1-year performance, RVER leads with 12.45% vs 10.14% for BDGS. On fees, RVER is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RVER or BDGS?

Over the 1-year period, RVER has performed better with a 12.45% return vs 10.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RVER or BDGS?

RVER is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

RVER has the higher dividend yield at 1.56%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between RVER and BDGS?

RVER is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: River1 and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RVER and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 0.44), 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.