SEIQ vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

SEIQ (SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SEIQ is a Quality Factor fund actively managed by SEI, while BDGS is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Bridges. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SEIQ returned 13.11%/yr vs 13.19%/yr for BDGS. Their 0.65 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. SEIQ charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF (SEIQ) 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, SEIQ achieves a 6.22% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 4.35% return.

SEIQ

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 2.35%
• 6M: 6.00%
• YTD: 6.22%
• 1Y: 13.02%
• 3Y*: 13.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.90%

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
SEIQ SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF	$2.13M	$3.08M	$2.14M

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SEIQ SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF	6.22%	12.51%	16.15%	11.37%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	4.35%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between SEIQ and BDGS is 0.57, 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.	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.65

The correlation between SEIQ and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SEIQ	BDGS
Technology	34.1%	38.9%
Healthcare	19.4%	7.1%
Consumer Defensive	13.1%	3.6%
Financial Services	10.3%	9.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	12.2%
Industrials	6.7%	6.8%
Communication Services	5.3%	15.1%
Basic Materials	0.9%	1.3%
Energy	-	2.4%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

SEIQ vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

SEIQ

SEIQ Risk / Return Rank: 38
SEIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
SEIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
SEIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 37
SEIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
SEIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF (SEIQ) 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.

	SEIQ	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	1.38	-0.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.45	2.12	-0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.28	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	2.04	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.51	8.70	-4.19

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SEIQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SEIQ 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

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SEIQ drawdown since its inception was -14.87%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SEIQ and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	SEIQ	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.87%	-9.12%	-5.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.66%	-4.76%	-4.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.27%	-9.12%	-5.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.39%	-2.03%	+1.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.68%	-0.69%	-1.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.55%	1.12%	+1.43%

Volatility

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF (SEIQ) has a higher volatility of 4.09% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.21%. This indicates that SEIQ'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

	SEIQ	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.09%	3.21%	+0.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.29%	6.11%	+3.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.57%	7.06%	+4.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.58%	8.30%	+6.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.58%	8.30%	+6.28%

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

SEIQ has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

SEIQ vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

SEIQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, more than BDGS's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.53%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%
SEIQ SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF	0.90%	0.94%	0.97%	1.08%	0.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SEIQ and BDGS in my portfolio?

SEIQ and BDGS have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SEIQ or BDGS?

SEIQ has higher volatility (4.09%) compared to BDGS (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SEIQ dropped -14.87% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, SEIQ or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, BDGS leads with 13.19% vs 13.11% for SEIQ. On fees, SEIQ is cheaper at 0.15% 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, SEIQ or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, BDGS has performed better with a 13.19% return vs 13.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SEIQ or BDGS?

SEIQ is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

SEIQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.53% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between SEIQ and BDGS?

SEIQ is categorized as Quality Factor, while BDGS is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: SEI and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SEIQ and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 1.00), 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.