LRGC vs. BBUS

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) and BBUS (JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. LRGC is actively managed, while BBUS is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGC returned 18.54% vs 21.54% for BBUS. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. LRGC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.02%/yr for BBUS.

Performance

LRGC vs. BBUS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGC achieves a 5.90% return, which is significantly lower than BBUS's 7.68% return.

LRGC

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: -0.69%
• YTD: 5.90%
• 6M: 4.99%
• 1Y: 18.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BBUS

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -1.43%
• YTD: 7.68%
• 6M: 6.38%
• 1Y: 21.54%
• 3Y*: 20.74%
• 5Y*: 12.46%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LRGC vs. BBUS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	5.90%	16.23%	24.92%	8.11%
BBUS JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF	7.68%	17.77%	24.89%	8.12%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGC and BBUS is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 20, 2023	0.96

The correlation between LRGC and BBUS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGC vs. BBUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGC	BBUS
Technology	34.9%	38.1%
Communication Services	13.2%	10.0%
Financial Services	12.8%	11.2%
Industrials	10.4%	7.4%
Healthcare	9.1%	8.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	9.1%
Energy	2.8%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	4.4%
Basic Materials	2.2%	1.2%
Utilities	1.9%	2.6%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.7%

Return for Risk

LRGC vs. BBUS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 47
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 48
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 50

BBUS

BBUS Risk / Return Rank: 57
BBUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
BBUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
BBUS Omega Ratio Rank: 56
BBUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
BBUS Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

LRGC vs. BBUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF (BBUS). 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.

	LRGC	BBUS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.73	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	2.37	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.31	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.86	2.35	-0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.61	10.33	-2.71

LRGC vs. BBUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGC Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the BBUS Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGC and BBUS, 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

LRGC vs. BBUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGC drawdown since its inception was -19.38%, smaller than the maximum BBUS drawdown of -35.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGC and BBUS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGC	BBUS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.38%	-35.35%	+15.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-9.21%	-0.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.21%	-3.37%	+1.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.19%	-5.43%	+3.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.44%	2.09%	+0.35%

Volatility

LRGC vs. BBUS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) is 4.47%, while JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF (BBUS) has a volatility of 4.89%. This indicates that LRGC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BBUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGC	BBUS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.47%	4.89%	-0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.79%	9.87%	-0.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.43%	12.53%	-0.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.27%	17.13%	-1.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.27%	19.59%	-4.32%

LRGC vs. BBUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than BBUS's 0.02% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGC vs. BBUS - Dividend Comparison

LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, less than BBUS's 1.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BBUS JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF	1.03%	1.07%	1.21%	1.38%	1.57%	1.11%	1.43%	1.37%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.55%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGC and BBUS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, LRGC and BBUS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, LRGC or BBUS?

BBUS has higher volatility (4.89%) compared to LRGC (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGC dropped -19.38% vs BBUS's -35.35%.

Which ETF is better, LRGC or BBUS?

On 1-year performance, BBUS leads with 21.54% vs 18.54% for LRGC. On fees, BBUS is cheaper at 0.02% per year. On volatility, LRGC has been the lower-risk option at 4.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGC or BBUS?

Over the 1-year period, BBUS has performed better with a 21.54% return vs 18.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGC or BBUS?

BBUS is cheaper with a 0.02% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for LRGC.

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

BBUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.03%, compared with 0.55% for LRGC.

What is the main difference between LRGC and BBUS?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for LRGC and 0.02% for BBUS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.51), 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.