LRGC vs. QMAR

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR).

LRGC and QMAR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LRGC is an actively managed fund by AllianceBernstein. It was launched on Sep 19, 2023. QMAR is an actively managed fund by First Trust. It was launched on Mar 19, 2021.

Performance

LRGC vs. QMAR - 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 Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

LRGC vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	-5.45%	16.23%	24.92%	9.30%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	1.87%	10.89%	16.11%	5.87%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGC achieves a -5.45% return, which is significantly lower than QMAR's 1.87% return.

LRGC

• 1D: 2.88%
• 1M: -4.95%
• YTD: -5.45%
• 6M: -3.88%
• 1Y: 15.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: 2.41%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 1.87%
• 6M: 4.47%
• 1Y: 18.84%
• 3Y*: 14.87%
• 5Y*: 10.44%
• 10Y*: —

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

LRGC vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

QMAR

FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March

LRGC

AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF

Return for Risk

LRGC vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 51
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 51
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 56

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 85
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. QMAR - 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 Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). 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	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	1.43	-0.58
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	2.27	-0.93
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.46	-0.27
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.36	2.03	-0.67
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.56	14.07	-8.51
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. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGC Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGC and QMAR, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LRGC	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85	1.43	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	0.76	+0.37

Correlation

The correlation between LRGC and QMAR is 0.82, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

LRGC vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.61%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

LRGC vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGC drawdown since its inception was -19.38%, roughly equal to the maximum QMAR drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGC and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGC	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.38%	-19.83%	+0.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.76%	-9.23%	-2.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.41%	-0.88%	-6.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.22%	-3.40%	+1.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.88%	1.33%	+1.55%

Volatility

LRGC vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a higher volatility of 5.35% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 3.50%. This indicates that LRGC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGC	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.35%	3.50%	+1.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.35%	4.62%	+4.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.06%	13.25%	+4.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.42%	14.05%	+1.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.42%	14.03%	+1.39%