LRGC vs. DMAY

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) and DMAY (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. LRGC is actively managed, while DMAY is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGC returned 24.19% vs 12.58% for DMAY. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LRGC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DMAY.

Performance

LRGC vs. DMAY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May (DMAY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGC achieves a 8.30% return, which is significantly higher than DMAY's 4.64% return.

LRGC

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: 3.10%
• YTD: 8.30%
• 6M: 8.22%
• 1Y: 24.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DMAY

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 1.46%
• YTD: 4.64%
• 6M: 5.44%
• 1Y: 12.58%
• 3Y*: 12.08%
• 5Y*: 7.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

LRGC vs. DMAY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	8.30%	16.23%	24.92%	9.30%
DMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May	4.64%	11.05%	12.82%	5.12%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGC and DMAY is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2023	0.88

The correlation between LRGC and DMAY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGC vs. DMAY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGC	DMAY
Technology	34.0%	36.2%
Communication Services	13.2%	10.9%
Financial Services	12.9%	11.9%
Industrials	8.9%	8.1%
Healthcare	8.8%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	10.1%
Utilities	3.4%	2.3%
Energy	2.8%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	4.9%
Basic Materials	2.1%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.9%

Return for Risk

LRGC vs. DMAY — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 58
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 61
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

DMAY

DMAY Risk / Return Rank: 87
DMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
DMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
DMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 92
DMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
DMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. DMAY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May (DMAY). 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	DMAY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.70	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.82	4.06	-1.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.61	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.43	3.79	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.10	23.15	-13.04
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. DMAY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGC Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the DMAY Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGC and DMAY, 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	DMAY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.04	2.70	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.80	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.47	0.88	+0.59

Drawdowns

LRGC vs. DMAY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGC drawdown since its inception was -19.38%, which is greater than DMAY's maximum drawdown of -13.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGC and DMAY.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGC	DMAY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.38%	-13.90%	-5.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-3.36%	-6.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.08%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.15%	-2.24%	+0.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	0.55%	+1.85%

Volatility

LRGC vs. DMAY - Volatility Comparison

AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a higher volatility of 2.92% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May (DMAY) at 0.85%. This indicates that LRGC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DMAY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGC	DMAY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	0.85%	+2.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.12%	3.74%	+5.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.90%	4.73%	+7.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.19%	9.02%	+6.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.19%	8.42%	+6.77%

LRGC vs. DMAY - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than DMAY's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGC vs. DMAY - Dividend Comparison

LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, while DMAY has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
DMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 LRGC and DMAY in my portfolio?

LRGC and DMAY have a correlation of 0.89, 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 DMAY?

LRGC has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to DMAY (0.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGC dropped -19.38% vs DMAY's -13.90%.

Which ETF is better, LRGC or DMAY?

On 1-year performance, LRGC leads with 24.19% vs 12.58% for DMAY. On fees, LRGC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, DMAY has been the lower-risk option at 0.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGC or DMAY?

Over the 1-year period, LRGC has performed better with a 24.19% return vs 12.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGC or DMAY?

LRGC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DMAY.

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

LRGC has the higher dividend yield at 0.54%, compared with 0.00% for DMAY.

What is the main difference between LRGC and DMAY?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for LRGC and 0.85% for DMAY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 2.04), 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.