FWD vs. LRGC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) and LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FWD is a Global 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, FWD returned 75.95% vs 23.67% for LRGC. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FWD charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for LRGC.

Performance

FWD vs. LRGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) 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, FWD achieves a 40.11% return, which is significantly higher than LRGC's 7.44% return.

FWD

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 14.15%
• YTD: 40.11%
• 6M: 39.78%
• 1Y: 75.95%
• 3Y*: 39.48%
• 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)

FWD vs. LRGC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	40.11%	32.00%	29.23%	14.56%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	7.44%	16.23%	24.92%	9.30%

Correlation

The correlation between FWD and LRGC is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2023	0.84

The correlation between FWD and LRGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

FWD vs. LRGC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWD	LRGC
Technology	52.6%	34.0%
Industrials	17.7%	8.9%
Healthcare	6.6%	8.8%
Communication Services	2.6%	13.2%
Energy	2.6%	2.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.4%	8.7%
Basic Materials	1.8%	2.1%
Utilities	1.0%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	2.8%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.5%
Financial Services	0.5%	12.9%

Return for Risk

FWD vs. LRGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

FWD vs. LRGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) 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.

	FWD	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.16	2.00	+1.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	2.77	+1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.36	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.86	2.38	+3.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.83	9.89	+10.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FWD vs. LRGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWD Sharpe Ratio is 3.16, which is higher than the LRGC Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWD 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

	FWD	LRGC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.16	2.00	+1.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.67	1.45	+0.22

Drawdowns

FWD vs. LRGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWD drawdown since its inception was -29.02%, which is greater than LRGC's maximum drawdown of -19.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWD and LRGC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWD	LRGC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.02%	-19.38%	-9.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.03%	-10.00%	-3.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-0.67%	+0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.06%	-2.15%	-1.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	2.40%	+1.26%

Volatility

FWD vs. LRGC - Volatility Comparison

AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a higher volatility of 7.77% compared to AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) at 2.91%. This indicates that FWD'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

	FWD	LRGC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.77%	2.91%	+4.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.96%	9.09%	+9.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.15%	11.88%	+12.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.72%	15.20%	+9.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.72%	15.20%	+9.52%

FWD vs. LRGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWD has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than LRGC's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

FWD vs. LRGC - Dividend Comparison

FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, less than LRGC's 0.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%	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 FWD and LRGC in my portfolio?

FWD and LRGC have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FWD or LRGC?

FWD has higher volatility (7.77%) compared to LRGC (2.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FWD dropped -29.02% vs LRGC's -19.38%.

Which ETF is better, FWD or LRGC?

On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 75.95% vs 23.67% for LRGC. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, LRGC has been the lower-risk option at 2.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FWD or LRGC?

Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 75.95% return vs 23.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWD or LRGC?

LRGC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

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

LRGC has the higher dividend yield at 0.54%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between FWD and LRGC?

FWD is categorized as Global Equities, while LRGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for FWD and 0.48% for LRGC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.16 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.