LRGC vs. CPLS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) and CPLS (AB Core Plus Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LRGC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while CPLS is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LRGC returned 23.67% vs 5.19% for CPLS. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LRGC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CPLS.

Performance

LRGC vs. CPLS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGC achieves a 7.44% return, which is significantly higher than CPLS's 0.36% return.

LRGC

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 3.05%
• YTD: 7.44%
• 6M: 7.71%
• 1Y: 23.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CPLS

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 0.36%
• 6M: 0.14%
• 1Y: 5.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LRGC vs. CPLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	7.44%	16.23%	24.92%	1.24%
CPLS AB Core Plus Bond ETF	0.36%	6.91%	1.65%	1.21%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGC and CPLS is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	0.24

Return for Risk

LRGC vs. CPLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

CPLS

CPLS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CPLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CPLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CPLS Omega Ratio Rank: 37
CPLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
CPLS Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. CPLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and AB Core Plus Bond ETF (CPLS). 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.

	LRGC	CPLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	1.35	+0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.77	2.04	+0.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.24	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	2.11	+0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.89	6.61	+3.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LRGC vs. CPLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGC Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is higher than the CPLS Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGC and CPLS, 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

	LRGC	CPLS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.00	1.35	+0.66
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.45	0.85	+0.59

Drawdowns

LRGC vs. CPLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGC drawdown since its inception was -19.38%, which is greater than CPLS's maximum drawdown of -4.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGC and CPLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGC	CPLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.38%	-4.43%	-14.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-2.47%	-7.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-1.20%	+0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.15%	-1.24%	-0.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	0.79%	+1.61%

Volatility

LRGC vs. CPLS - Volatility Comparison

AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a higher volatility of 2.91% compared to AB Core Plus Bond ETF (CPLS) at 1.38%. This indicates that LRGC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CPLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGC	CPLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.91%	1.38%	+1.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.09%	2.86%	+6.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.88%	3.87%	+8.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.20%	4.82%	+10.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.20%	4.82%	+10.38%

LRGC vs. CPLS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than CPLS's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGC vs. CPLS - Dividend Comparison

LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than CPLS's 4.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CPLS AB Core Plus Bond ETF	4.62%	4.66%	4.71%	0.23%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.54%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGC and CPLS in my portfolio?

LRGC and CPLS have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LRGC or CPLS?

LRGC has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to CPLS (1.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGC dropped -19.38% vs CPLS's -4.43%.

Which ETF is better, LRGC or CPLS?

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 23.67% vs 5.19% for CPLS. On fees, CPLS is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CPLS has been the lower-risk option at 1.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGC or CPLS?

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 23.67% return vs 5.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGC or CPLS?

CPLS is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for LRGC.

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

CPLS has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 0.54% for LRGC.

What is the main difference between LRGC and CPLS?

LRGC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while CPLS is Intermediate Core-Plus Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for LRGC and 0.33% for CPLS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LRGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.35), 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.