TMFE vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TMFE (The RBB Fund, Inc. - Motley Fool High Capital Efficiency Index ETF) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. TMFE is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFE returned 16.99%/yr vs 13.32%/yr for BDGS. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFE charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

TMFE vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The RBB Fund, Inc. - Motley Fool High Capital Efficiency Index ETF (TMFE) 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, TMFE achieves a -0.93% return, which is significantly lower than BDGS's 3.92% return.

TMFE

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: -3.36%
• YTD: -0.93%
• 6M: -1.93%
• 1Y: 4.62%
• 3Y*: 16.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -1.40%
• YTD: 3.92%
• 6M: 3.55%
• 1Y: 10.74%
• 3Y*: 13.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMFE vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TMFE The RBB Fund, Inc. - Motley Fool High Capital Efficiency Index ETF	-0.93%	11.10%	27.95%	23.45%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	3.92%	10.61%	19.07%	8.23%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFE and BDGS is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.70

The correlation between TMFE and BDGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMFE vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFE	BDGS
Technology	33.6%	37.4%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	10.9%
Communication Services	15.3%	16.6%
Consumer Defensive	10.0%	4.1%
Financial Services	9.0%	9.3%
Healthcare	8.8%	7.5%
Industrials	4.3%	6.6%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.5%
Energy	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

TMFE vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFE

TMFE Risk / Return Rank: 14
TMFE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
TMFE Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
TMFE Omega Ratio Rank: 13
TMFE Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
TMFE Martin Ratio Rank: 16

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 62
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 63
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

TMFE vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The RBB Fund, Inc. - Motley Fool High Capital Efficiency Index ETF (TMFE) 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.

	TMFE	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.37	1.70	-1.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.61	2.55	-1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.34	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.41	2.68	-2.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.50	11.59	-10.09

TMFE vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFE Sharpe Ratio is 0.37, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFE 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

TMFE vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFE drawdown since its inception was -31.21%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFE and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFE	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.21%	-9.12%	-22.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.30%	-4.03%	-7.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.81%	-9.12%	-9.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.17%	-2.44%	-1.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.27%	-0.66%	-7.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	0.93%	+2.16%

Volatility

TMFE vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

The RBB Fund, Inc. - Motley Fool High Capital Efficiency Index ETF (TMFE) has a higher volatility of 4.33% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 2.30%. This indicates that TMFE'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

	TMFE	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	2.30%	+2.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.82%	5.18%	+4.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.51%	6.35%	+6.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.23%	8.22%	+11.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.23%	8.22%	+11.01%

TMFE vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFE has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFE vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

TMFE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less 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%
TMFE The RBB Fund, Inc. - Motley Fool High Capital Efficiency Index ETF	0.32%	0.32%	0.44%	0.45%	0.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFE and BDGS in my portfolio?

TMFE and BDGS have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFE or BDGS?

TMFE has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to BDGS (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFE dropped -31.21% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, TMFE or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, TMFE leads with 16.99% vs 13.32% for BDGS. On fees, TMFE is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFE or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, TMFE has performed better with a 16.99% return vs 13.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFE or BDGS?

TMFE is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for BDGS.

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

BDGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.53%, compared with 0.32% for TMFE.

What is the main difference between TMFE and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: RBB Fund and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFE and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.70 vs 0.37), 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.