PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LOWV vs. LRGC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LOWV vs. LRGC - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LOWV achieves a 2.73% return, which is significantly lower than LRGC's 8.16% return.


LOWV

1D
-0.83%
1M
0.85%
YTD
2.73%
6M
2.69%
1Y
10.86%
3Y*
15.49%
5Y*
10Y*

LRGC

1D
0.04%
1M
3.26%
YTD
8.16%
6M
8.83%
1Y
25.23%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LOWV vs. LRGC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
LOWV
AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF
2.73%12.26%20.43%7.33%
LRGC
AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF
8.16%16.23%24.92%9.30%

Correlation

The correlation between LOWV 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 Sep 21, 2023

0.89

The correlation between LOWV and LRGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

LOWV vs. LRGC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LOWV
LRGC

Technology

32.6%
34.0%

Financial Services

14.9%
12.9%

Healthcare

11.4%
8.8%

Communication Services

9.7%
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
8.7%

Industrials

7.4%
8.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.5%
2.8%

Utilities

4.8%
3.4%

Energy

2.4%
2.8%

Real Estate

1.8%
1.5%

Basic Materials

-

2.1%

Technology

LOWV
32.6%
LRGC
34.0%

Financial Services

LOWV
14.9%
LRGC
12.9%

Healthcare

LOWV
11.4%
LRGC
8.8%

Communication Services

LOWV
9.7%
LRGC
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

LOWV
9.4%
LRGC
8.7%

Industrials

LOWV
7.4%
LRGC
8.9%

Consumer Defensive

LOWV
5.5%
LRGC
2.8%

Utilities

LOWV
4.8%
LRGC
3.4%

Energy

LOWV
2.4%
LRGC
2.8%

Real Estate

LOWV
1.8%
LRGC
1.5%

Basic Materials

LOWV

-

LRGC
2.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LOWV vs. LRGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LOWV
LOWV Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
LOWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2828
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LOWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
LOWV Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
LOWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
LOWV Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

LRGC
LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LOWV vs. LRGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) 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.


LOWVLRGCDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.04

2.14

-1.09

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.50

2.94

-1.44

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.38

-0.20

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.14

2.58

-1.44

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

4.65

10.76

-6.11

LOWV vs. LRGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LOWV Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the LRGC Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LOWV 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LOWVLRGCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.04

2.14

-1.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.47

1.47

0.00

Drawdowns

LOWV vs. LRGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LOWV drawdown since its inception was -13.87%, smaller than the maximum LRGC drawdown of -19.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LOWV and LRGC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LOWVLRGCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.87%

-19.38%

+5.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.59%

-10.00%

+0.41%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.95%

0.00%

-0.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.50%

-2.15%

+0.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.34%

2.40%

-0.06%

Volatility

LOWV vs. LRGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) is 2.17%, while AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a volatility of 2.85%. This indicates that LOWV 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LOWVLRGCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.17%

2.85%

-0.68%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.89%

9.08%

-1.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.47%

11.87%

-1.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.95%

15.20%

-3.25%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.95%

15.20%

-3.25%

LOWV vs. LRGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LOWV and LRGC have an expense ratio of 0.48%.


Dividends

LOWV vs. LRGC - Dividend Comparison

LOWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, more than LRGC's 0.54% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
LOWV
AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF
0.91%0.85%0.92%0.77%
LRGC
AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF
0.54%0.58%0.46%0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions


LOWV 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.

LRGC has higher volatility (2.85%) compared to LOWV (2.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LOWV dropped -13.87% vs LRGC's -19.38%.

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 25.23% vs 10.86% for LOWV. Both ETFs have the same 0.48% expense ratio. On volatility, LOWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 25.23% return vs 10.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LOWV and LRGC have the same expense ratio: 0.48% per year.

LOWV has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.54% for LRGC.

LRGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.04), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LOWV and LRGC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer