EMOP vs. LRGC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMOP (AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF) and LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMOP is a Emerging Markets Equities 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, EMOP returned 38.67% vs 17.64% for LRGC. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EMOP charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for LRGC.

Performance

EMOP vs. LRGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) 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, EMOP achieves a 21.20% return, which is significantly higher than LRGC's 9.49% return.

EMOP

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -3.09%
• 6M: 9.87%
• YTD: 21.20%
• 1Y: 38.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 36.16%

LRGC

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: 1.30%
• 6M: 8.41%
• YTD: 9.49%
• 1Y: 17.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.84%

*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)
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	$2.89M	$2.64M	$4.99M
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	$2.26M	$3.31M	$3.95M

EMOP vs. LRGC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	21.20%	16.48%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	9.49%	13.64%

Correlation

The correlation between EMOP and LRGC is 0.69, 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.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.66

The correlation between EMOP and LRGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMOP vs. LRGC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMOP	LRGC
Technology	37.8%	32.1%
Financial Services	18.5%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	2.8%
Energy	8.1%	3.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	7.9%
Industrials	6.8%	9.1%
Communication Services	4.2%	11.4%
Healthcare	3.4%	9.3%
Utilities	2.8%	2.9%
Real Estate	2.7%	1.5%
Basic Materials	1.6%	1.2%

Return for Risk

EMOP vs. LRGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMOP

EMOP Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EMOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
EMOP Omega Ratio Rank: 70
EMOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EMOP Martin Ratio Rank: 72

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 49
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 48
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

EMOP vs. LRGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) 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.

	EMOP	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.24	+0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	1.75	+0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.22	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	1.56	+1.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.90	6.31	+2.59

EMOP vs. LRGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMOP Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the LRGC Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMOP 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

EMOP vs. LRGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMOP drawdown since its inception was -13.05%, smaller than the maximum LRGC drawdown of -19.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMOP and LRGC.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMOP	LRGC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.05%	-19.38%	+6.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.05%	-10.00%	-3.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.28%	-0.37%	-8.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.47%	-2.14%	-0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.18%	2.47%	+1.71%

Volatility

EMOP vs. LRGC - Volatility Comparison

AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) has a higher volatility of 9.10% compared to AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) at 3.22%. This indicates that EMOP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LRGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMOP	LRGC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.10%	3.22%	+5.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.10%	9.86%	+11.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.30%	12.63%	+10.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.38%	15.12%	+7.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.38%	15.12%	+7.26%

EMOP vs. LRGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMOP has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than LRGC's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMOP vs. LRGC - Dividend Comparison

EMOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, more than LRGC's 0.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	1.22%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.53%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMOP and LRGC in my portfolio?

EMOP and LRGC have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMOP or LRGC?

EMOP has higher volatility (9.10%) compared to LRGC (3.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMOP dropped -13.05% vs LRGC's -19.38%.

Which ETF is better, EMOP or LRGC?

On 1-year performance, EMOP leads with 38.67% vs 17.64% for LRGC. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, LRGC has been the lower-risk option at 3.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMOP or LRGC?

Over the 1-year period, EMOP has performed better with a 38.67% return vs 17.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMOP or LRGC?

LRGC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for EMOP.

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

EMOP has the higher dividend yield at 1.22%, compared with 0.53% for LRGC.

What is the main difference between EMOP and LRGC?

EMOP is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while LRGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for EMOP and 0.48% for LRGC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.24), 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.