BUFM vs. LRGC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUFM (AB Moderate Buffer ETF) and LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUFM is a Defined Outcome 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, BUFM returned 12.60% vs 23.67% for LRGC. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFM charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for LRGC.

Performance

BUFM vs. LRGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) 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, BUFM achieves a 3.71% return, which is significantly lower than LRGC's 7.44% return.

BUFM

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: 3.71%
• 6M: 4.16%
• 1Y: 12.60%
• 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)

BUFM vs. LRGC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BUFM AB Moderate Buffer ETF	3.71%	12.94%	-1.10%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	7.44%	16.23%	-2.81%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFM and LRGC is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2024	0.88

The correlation between BUFM and LRGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFM vs. LRGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFM

BUFM Risk / Return Rank: 67
BUFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BUFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BUFM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BUFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
BUFM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

BUFM vs. LRGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) 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.

	BUFM	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	2.00	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	2.77	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.36	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	2.38	+0.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.49	9.89	+1.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUFM vs. LRGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFM Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is comparable to the LRGC Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFM 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

	BUFM	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.19	2.00	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.12	1.45	-0.32

Drawdowns

BUFM vs. LRGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFM drawdown since its inception was -9.43%, smaller than the maximum LRGC drawdown of -19.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFM and LRGC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFM	LRGC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.43%	-19.38%	+9.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.07%	-10.00%	+5.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-0.67%	+0.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.99%	-2.15%	+1.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.10%	2.40%	-1.30%

Volatility

BUFM vs. LRGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Moderate Buffer ETF (BUFM) is 1.05%, while AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a volatility of 2.91%. This indicates that BUFM 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

	BUFM	LRGC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.05%	2.91%	-1.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.37%	9.09%	-4.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.77%	11.88%	-6.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.43%	15.20%	-5.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.43%	15.20%	-5.77%

BUFM vs. LRGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BUFM vs. LRGC - Dividend Comparison

BUFM 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
BUFM AB Moderate 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 BUFM and LRGC in my portfolio?

BUFM and LRGC have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFM or LRGC?

LRGC has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to BUFM (1.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFM dropped -9.43% vs LRGC's -19.38%.

Which ETF is better, BUFM or LRGC?

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 23.67% vs 12.60% for BUFM. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, BUFM has been the lower-risk option at 1.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFM or LRGC?

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 23.67% return vs 12.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFM or LRGC?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BUFM and LRGC?

BUFM is categorized as Defined Outcome, while LRGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BUFM and 0.48% for LRGC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 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.