BUFH vs. LRGC

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BUFH (FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF) and LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFH is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while LRGC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BUFH returned 6.34% vs 19.31% for LRGC. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BUFH charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for LRGC.

Performance

BUFH vs. LRGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) 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, BUFH achieves a 3.19% return, which is significantly lower than LRGC's 11.05% return.

BUFH

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.56%
• 6M: 2.79%
• YTD: 3.19%
• 1Y: 6.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.41%

LRGC

• 1D: 1.42%
• 1M: 2.75%
• 6M: 9.57%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 1Y: 19.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.37%

*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)
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	$330.62K	$242.47K	$193.16K
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	$2.39M	$3.10M	$3.93M

BUFH vs. LRGC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	3.19%	3.81%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	11.05%	11.93%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFH and LRGC is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025	0.76

The correlation between BUFH and LRGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFH vs. LRGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFH

BUFH Risk / Return Rank: 94
BUFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BUFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Omega Ratio Rank: 95
BUFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
BUFH Martin Ratio Rank: 94

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 59
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

BUFH vs. LRGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) 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.

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.

	BUFH	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.66	1.54	+1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.15	2.16	+1.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.27	+0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.16	1.94	+2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.44	7.84	+11.59

BUFH vs. LRGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFH Sharpe Ratio is 2.66, which is higher than the LRGC Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFH 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.

Drawdowns

BUFH vs. LRGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFH drawdown since its inception was -1.53%, smaller than the maximum LRGC drawdown of -19.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFH and LRGC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFH	LRGC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.53%	-19.38%	+17.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.53%	-10.00%	+8.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.17%	-2.14%	+1.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.33%	2.47%	-2.14%

Volatility

BUFH vs. LRGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF (BUFH) is 0.54%, while AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a volatility of 3.49%. This indicates that BUFH 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

	BUFH	LRGC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.54%	3.49%	-2.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.88%	9.94%	-8.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40%	12.60%	-10.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.32%	15.13%	-12.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.32%	15.13%	-12.81%

BUFH vs. LRGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFH has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than LRGC's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFH vs. LRGC - Dividend Comparison

BUFH has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BUFH FT Vest Laddered Max Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.52%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUFH and LRGC in my portfolio?

BUFH and LRGC have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFH or LRGC?

LRGC has higher volatility (3.49%) compared to BUFH (0.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFH dropped -1.53% vs LRGC's -19.38%.

Which ETF is better, BUFH or LRGC?

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 19.31% vs 6.34% for BUFH. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, BUFH has been the lower-risk option at 0.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFH or LRGC?

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 19.31% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFH or LRGC?

LRGC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFH.

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

LRGC has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.00% for BUFH.

What is the main difference between BUFH and LRGC?

BUFH is categorized as Defined Outcome, while LRGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BUFH and 0.48% for LRGC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 1.54), 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.