THRO vs. BDGS

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

THRO (iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, THRO returned 22.13%/yr vs 13.64%/yr for BDGS. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. THRO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

THRO vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF (THRO) 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, THRO achieves a 12.26% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.44% return.

THRO

• 1D: 1.43%
• 1M: 1.36%
• 6M: 10.09%
• YTD: 12.26%
• 1Y: 22.01%
• 3Y*: 22.13%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.99%

BDGS

• 1D: 1.04%
• 1M: 0.33%
• 6M: 5.03%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 1Y: 11.29%
• 3Y*: 13.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.44%

*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	$54.06K	$102.41K	$187.59K
THRO iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF	$20.83M	$25.08M	$80.87M

THRO vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
THRO iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF	12.26%	15.04%	32.03%	16.16%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.44%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between THRO and BDGS is 0.81, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.77

The correlation between THRO and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

THRO vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	THRO	BDGS
Technology	44.2%	38.9%
Industrials	11.0%	6.8%
Financial Services	10.8%	9.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	12.2%
Communication Services	8.7%	15.1%
Healthcare	6.0%	7.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.7%	3.6%
Energy	3.5%	2.4%
Basic Materials	1.1%	1.3%
Utilities	0.1%	1.8%
Real Estate	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

THRO vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

THRO

THRO Risk / Return Rank: 61
THRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
THRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
THRO Omega Ratio Rank: 59
THRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
THRO Martin Ratio Rank: 66

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 73
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

THRO vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF (THRO) 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.

	THRO	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.59	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.45	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.32	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	2.38	-0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.29	10.11	-1.82

THRO vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current THRO Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of THRO 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

THRO vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum THRO drawdown since its inception was -26.54%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for THRO and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	THRO	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.54%	-9.12%	-17.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-4.76%	-6.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.07%	-9.12%	-9.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.01%	-1.01%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.54%	-0.69%	-5.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.66%	1.12%	+1.54%

Volatility

THRO vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF (THRO) has a higher volatility of 4.62% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 3.39%. This indicates that THRO'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

	THRO	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.62%	3.39%	+1.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.78%	6.19%	+5.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.50%	7.13%	+7.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.70%	8.31%	+10.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.70%	8.31%	+10.39%

THRO vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

THRO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

THRO vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

THRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.25%, less than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%
THRO iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF	0.25%	0.15%	0.73%	0.55%	0.90%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both THRO and BDGS in my portfolio?

THRO and BDGS have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, THRO or BDGS?

THRO has higher volatility (4.62%) compared to BDGS (3.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, THRO dropped -26.54% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, THRO or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, THRO leads with 22.13% vs 13.64% for BDGS. On fees, THRO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, THRO or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, THRO has performed better with a 22.13% return vs 13.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, THRO or BDGS?

THRO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.25% for THRO.

What is the main difference between THRO and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for THRO and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 1.53), 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.