BUFC vs. LRGC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) and LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFC is a Options Trading fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while LRGC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFC returned 8.86% vs 23.67% for LRGC. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUFC charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for LRGC.

Performance

BUFC vs. LRGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUFC achieves a 2.84% return, which is significantly lower than LRGC's 7.44% return.

BUFC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 2.84%
• 6M: 3.28%
• 1Y: 8.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LRGC

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 3.05%
• YTD: 7.44%
• 6M: 7.71%
• 1Y: 23.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BUFC vs. LRGC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.84%	5.50%	10.81%	0.47%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	7.44%	16.23%	24.92%	1.24%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFC and LRGC is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	0.78

The correlation between BUFC and LRGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUFC vs. LRGC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUFC	LRGC
Technology	33.6%	34.0%
Financial Services	12.5%	12.9%
Communication Services	10.5%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	8.7%
Healthcare	9.6%	8.8%
Industrials	8.6%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	2.8%
Energy	3.4%	2.8%
Utilities	2.5%	3.4%
Real Estate	2.0%	1.5%
Basic Materials	1.9%	2.1%

Return for Risk

BUFC vs. LRGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 61
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 57
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 59
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

BUFC vs. LRGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) and AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC). 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.

	BUFC	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.00	+0.09
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	2.77	+0.20
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.36	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	2.38	+0.08
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.49	9.89	+0.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFC vs. LRGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the LRGC Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFC and LRGC, 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

	BUFC	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	2.00	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	1.45	-0.02

Drawdowns

BUFC vs. LRGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFC drawdown since its inception was -8.29%, smaller than the maximum LRGC drawdown of -19.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFC and LRGC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFC	LRGC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.29%	-19.38%	+11.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.62%	-10.00%	+6.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-0.67%	+0.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-2.15%	+1.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	2.40%	-1.55%

Volatility

BUFC vs. LRGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC) is 0.98%, while AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a volatility of 2.91%. This indicates that BUFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LRGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUFC	LRGC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.98%	2.91%	-1.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.36%	9.09%	-5.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.25%	11.88%	-7.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	15.20%	-9.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.64%	15.20%	-9.56%

BUFC vs. LRGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFC has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than LRGC's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFC vs. LRGC - Dividend Comparison

BUFC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.54%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFC and LRGC in my portfolio?

BUFC and LRGC have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFC or LRGC?

LRGC has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to BUFC (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFC dropped -8.29% vs LRGC's -19.38%.

Which ETF is better, BUFC or LRGC?

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 23.67% vs 8.86% for BUFC. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, BUFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFC or LRGC?

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 23.67% return vs 8.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFC or LRGC?

LRGC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUFC or LRGC?

LRGC has the higher dividend yield at 0.54%, compared with 0.00% for BUFC.

What is the main difference between BUFC and LRGC?

BUFC is categorized as Options Trading, while LRGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BUFC and 0.48% for LRGC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 2.00), 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.