SMIG vs. BSMC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SMIG (Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF) and BSMC (Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SMIG returned 11.81% vs 24.26% for BSMC. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMIG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for BSMC.

Performance

SMIG vs. BSMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) and Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMIG achieves a 10.18% return, which is significantly higher than BSMC's 9.25% return.

SMIG

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 1.31%
• YTD: 10.18%
• 6M: 11.46%
• 1Y: 11.81%
• 3Y*: 13.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BSMC

• 1D: -0.46%
• 1M: 0.43%
• YTD: 9.25%
• 6M: 9.99%
• 1Y: 24.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SMIG vs. BSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	10.18%	0.78%	17.63%	12.40%
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	9.25%	15.52%	10.21%	11.69%

Correlation

The correlation between SMIG and BSMC is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2023	0.85

The correlation between SMIG and BSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMIG vs. BSMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMIG	BSMC
Technology	19.8%	14.7%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	6.6%
Financial Services	14.2%	10.4%
Industrials	13.9%	19.1%
Energy	12.8%	7.5%
Healthcare	10.1%	21.3%
Basic Materials	7.9%	3.4%
Real Estate	6.9%	-
Utilities	5.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	13.0%
Communication Services	2.2%	3.9%

Return for Risk

SMIG vs. BSMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMIG

SMIG Risk / Return Rank: 27
SMIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
SMIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
SMIG Omega Ratio Rank: 26
SMIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
SMIG Martin Ratio Rank: 27

BSMC

BSMC Risk / Return Rank: 52
BSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
BSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
BSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 47
BSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
BSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

SMIG vs. BSMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) and Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC). 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.

	SMIG	BSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	1.68	-0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.53	2.50	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.29	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.39	2.70	-1.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.62	9.57	-5.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SMIG vs. BSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMIG Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is lower than the BSMC Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMIG and BSMC, 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

	SMIG	BSMC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99	1.68	-0.69
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	1.13	-0.69

Drawdowns

SMIG vs. BSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMIG drawdown since its inception was -19.65%, roughly equal to the maximum BSMC drawdown of -19.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMIG and BSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMIG	BSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.65%	-19.15%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.52%	-9.02%	+0.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.79%	-1.95%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.55%	-2.68%	-3.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.27%	2.54%	+0.73%

Volatility

SMIG vs. BSMC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) is 3.65%, while Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC) has a volatility of 3.97%. This indicates that SMIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SMIG	BSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	3.97%	-0.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.43%	10.06%	-1.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.98%	14.52%	-2.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.20%	16.09%	+0.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.20%	16.09%	+0.11%

SMIG vs. BSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMIG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BSMC's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMIG vs. BSMC - Dividend Comparison

SMIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, more than BSMC's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	0.95%	1.17%	1.02%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	1.75%	1.82%	1.75%	1.91%	2.00%	0.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMIG and BSMC in my portfolio?

SMIG and BSMC have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMIG or BSMC?

BSMC has higher volatility (3.97%) compared to SMIG (3.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMIG dropped -19.65% vs BSMC's -19.15%.

Which ETF is better, SMIG or BSMC?

On 1-year performance, BSMC leads with 24.26% vs 11.81% for SMIG. On fees, SMIG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, SMIG has been the lower-risk option at 3.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMIG or BSMC?

Over the 1-year period, BSMC has performed better with a 24.26% return vs 11.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMIG or BSMC?

SMIG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BSMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SMIG or BSMC?

SMIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.95% for BSMC.

What is the main difference between SMIG and BSMC?

They also come from different issuers: Bahl & Gaynor and Brandes. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for SMIG and 0.70% for BSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BSMC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.68 vs 0.99), 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.