LRGC vs. DFND

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) and DFND (Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. LRGC is actively managed, while DFND is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGC returned 23.67% vs 0.20% for DFND. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LRGC charges 0.48%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for DFND.

Performance

LRGC vs. DFND - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

LRGC

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

DFND

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: -1.09%
• 1Y: 0.20%
• 3Y*: 7.91%
• 5Y*: 4.54%
• 10Y*: 7.16%

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

LRGC vs. DFND - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	7.44%	16.23%	24.92%	9.30%
DFND Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF	0.00%	10.37%	8.48%	0.76%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGC and DFND is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2023	0.16

LRGC vs. DFND - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGC	DFND
Technology	34.0%	24.8%
Communication Services	13.2%	0.8%
Financial Services	12.9%	18.2%
Industrials	8.9%	17.1%
Healthcare	8.8%	10.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	3.5%
Utilities	3.4%	-
Energy	2.8%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	4.2%
Basic Materials	2.1%	4.3%
Real Estate	1.5%	2.0%

Return for Risk

LRGC vs. DFND — 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

DFND

DFND Risk / Return Rank: 9
DFND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
DFND Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
DFND Omega Ratio Rank: 8
DFND Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
DFND Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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. DFND - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND). 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	DFND	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	0.02	+1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.77	0.11	+2.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.02	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	0.07	+2.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.89	0.13	+9.76
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. DFND - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGC Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is higher than the DFND Sharpe Ratio of 0.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGC and DFND, 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	DFND	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.00	0.02	+1.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.21	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.38	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.45	0.36	+1.09

Drawdowns

LRGC vs. DFND - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGC drawdown since its inception was -19.38%, smaller than the maximum DFND drawdown of -22.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGC and DFND.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGC	DFND	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.38%	-22.65%	+3.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-3.44%	-6.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.65%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-3.69%	+3.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.15%	-5.70%	+3.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	3.70%	-1.30%

Volatility

LRGC vs. DFND - Volatility Comparison

AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a higher volatility of 2.91% compared to Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF (DFND) at 0.00%. This indicates that LRGC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGC	DFND	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.91%	0.00%	+2.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.09%	6.16%	+2.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.88%	10.92%	+0.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.20%	22.46%	-7.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.20%	19.09%	-3.89%

LRGC vs. DFND - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than DFND's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGC vs. DFND - Dividend Comparison

LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than DFND's 0.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DFND Siren DIVCON Dividend Defender ETF	0.62%	1.10%	1.64%	1.84%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.77%	0.53%	0.02%
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.54%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGC and DFND in my portfolio?

LRGC and DFND have a correlation of 0.14, 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 DFND?

LRGC has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to DFND (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGC dropped -19.38% vs DFND's -22.65%.

Which ETF is better, LRGC or DFND?

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 23.67% vs 0.20% for DFND. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, DFND has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGC or DFND?

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 23.67% return vs 0.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGC or DFND?

LRGC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for DFND.

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

DFND has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.54% for LRGC.

What is the main difference between LRGC and DFND?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and SRN Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for LRGC and 1.50% for DFND.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LRGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 0.02), 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.