ZIG vs. BDGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZIG (Acquirers Fund) and BDGS (Bridges Capital Tactical ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. ZIG is passively managed, while BDGS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZIG returned 14.07%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for BDGS. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZIG charges 1.85%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for BDGS.

Performance

ZIG vs. BDGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Acquirers Fund (ZIG) 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, ZIG achieves a 8.67% return, which is significantly higher than BDGS's 5.64% return.

ZIG

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 1.00%
• YTD: 8.67%
• 6M: 5.36%
• 1Y: 16.94%
• 3Y*: 14.07%
• 5Y*: 9.39%
• 10Y*: —

BDGS

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 5.64%
• 6M: 5.65%
• 1Y: 13.85%
• 3Y*: 14.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZIG vs. BDGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ZIG Acquirers Fund	8.67%	-2.67%	11.34%	29.15%
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	5.64%	10.61%	19.07%	8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between ZIG and BDGS is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.41

The correlation between ZIG and BDGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.41 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZIG vs. BDGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZIG	BDGS
Consumer Cyclical	38.5%	10.9%
Energy	15.3%	2.6%
Basic Materials	13.4%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	10.1%	4.1%
Industrials	7.0%	6.6%
Financial Services	6.9%	9.3%
Healthcare	4.3%	7.5%
Technology	4.1%	37.4%
Communication Services	-	16.6%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

ZIG vs. BDGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZIG

ZIG Risk / Return Rank: 28
ZIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
ZIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
ZIG Omega Ratio Rank: 26
ZIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
ZIG Martin Ratio Rank: 29

BDGS

BDGS Risk / Return Rank: 74
BDGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
BDGS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BDGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BDGS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

ZIG vs. BDGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Acquirers Fund (ZIG) 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.

	ZIG	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.95	2.29	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	3.40	-1.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.47	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	3.45	-2.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.12	16.47	-12.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZIG vs. BDGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZIG Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is lower than the BDGS Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZIG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ZIG	BDGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95	2.29	-1.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	1.76	-1.41

Drawdowns

ZIG vs. BDGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZIG drawdown since its inception was -37.14%, which is greater than BDGS's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZIG and BDGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZIG	BDGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.14%	-9.12%	-28.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.38%	-4.03%	-8.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.75%	-9.12%	-20.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.64%	-0.83%	-4.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.74%	-0.64%	-9.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.12%	0.84%	+3.28%

Volatility

ZIG vs. BDGS - Volatility Comparison

Acquirers Fund (ZIG) has a higher volatility of 2.97% compared to Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) at 1.14%. This indicates that ZIG'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

	ZIG	BDGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.97%	1.14%	+1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.23%	4.74%	+5.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.95%	6.08%	+11.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.48%	8.21%	+12.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.14%	8.21%	+13.93%

ZIG vs. BDGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZIG has a 1.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BDGS's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZIG vs. BDGS - Dividend Comparison

ZIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, more than BDGS's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BDGS Bridges Capital Tactical ETF	0.52%	0.55%	1.81%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZIG Acquirers Fund	1.76%	1.91%	1.96%	1.07%	1.26%	0.18%	0.18%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZIG and BDGS in my portfolio?

ZIG and BDGS have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZIG or BDGS?

ZIG has higher volatility (2.97%) compared to BDGS (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZIG dropped -37.14% vs BDGS's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, ZIG or BDGS?

On 3-year performance, ZIG leads with 14.07% vs 14.06% for BDGS. On fees, BDGS is cheaper at 0.87% per year. On volatility, BDGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZIG or BDGS?

Over the 3-year period, ZIG has performed better with a 14.07% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZIG or BDGS?

BDGS is cheaper with a 0.87% expense ratio, compared with 1.85% for ZIG.

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

ZIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 0.52% for BDGS.

What is the main difference between ZIG and BDGS?

They also come from different issuers: Acquirers Funds and Bridges. Their fees differ too: 1.85% for ZIG and 0.87% for BDGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 0.95), 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.