LRGC vs. QUS

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

LRGC (AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF) and QUS (State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. LRGC is actively managed, while QUS is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGC returned 19.31% vs 19.80% for QUS. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. LRGC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QUS.

Performance

LRGC vs. QUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGC achieves a 11.05% return, which is significantly higher than QUS's 10.23% return.

LRGC

• 1D: 1.42%
• 1M: 2.75%
• 6M: 9.57%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 1Y: 19.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.37%

QUS

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 1.29%
• 6M: 7.60%
• YTD: 10.23%
• 1Y: 19.80%
• 3Y*: 17.10%
• 5Y*: 10.91%
• 10Y*: 13.54%
• ALL TIME*: 12.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	$2.39M	$3.10M	$3.93M
QUS State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF	$3.01M	$4.81M	$3.43M

LRGC vs. QUS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	11.05%	16.23%	24.92%	8.11%
QUS State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF	10.23%	14.13%	18.99%	7.26%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGC and QUS is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 20, 2023	0.86

The correlation between LRGC and QUS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGC vs. QUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGC	QUS
Technology	32.1%	28.4%
Financial Services	13.5%	15.7%
Communication Services	11.4%	8.2%
Healthcare	9.3%	14.4%
Industrials	9.1%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	5.7%
Energy	3.1%	3.3%
Utilities	2.9%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	8.3%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.6%
Basic Materials	1.2%	2.2%

Return for Risk

LRGC vs. QUS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LRGC

LRGC Risk / Return Rank: 59
LRGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LRGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
LRGC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
LRGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
LRGC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

QUS

QUS Risk / Return Rank: 85
QUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
QUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
QUS Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
QUS Martin Ratio Rank: 86

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LRGC vs. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) and State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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	QUS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	2.16	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	3.05	-0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.39	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.94	2.90	-0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.84	12.95	-5.11

LRGC vs. QUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGC Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the QUS Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGC and QUS, 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. QUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGC drawdown since its inception was -19.38%, smaller than the maximum QUS drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGC and QUS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGC	QUS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.38%	-33.78%	+14.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-6.85%	-3.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.94%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.30%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.14%	-3.66%	+1.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	1.53%	+0.94%

Volatility

LRGC vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison

AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) has a higher volatility of 3.49% compared to State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) at 2.42%. This indicates that LRGC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGC	QUS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.49%	2.42%	+1.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.94%	6.97%	+2.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.60%	9.22%	+3.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.13%	14.32%	+0.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.13%	16.40%	-1.27%

LRGC vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGC vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison

LRGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than QUS's 1.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LRGC AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF	0.52%	0.58%	0.46%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QUS State Street SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF	1.27%	1.38%	1.49%	1.57%	1.68%	1.27%	1.73%	1.81%	2.12%	1.86%	2.07%	1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGC and QUS in my portfolio?

LRGC and QUS have a correlation of 0.82, 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 QUS?

LRGC has higher volatility (3.49%) compared to QUS (2.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGC dropped -19.38% vs QUS's -33.78%.

Which ETF is better, LRGC or QUS?

On 1-year performance, QUS leads with 19.80% vs 19.31% for LRGC. On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QUS has been the lower-risk option at 2.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGC or QUS?

Over the 1-year period, QUS has performed better with a 19.80% return vs 19.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGC or QUS?

QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for LRGC.

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

QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.52% for LRGC.

What is the main difference between LRGC and QUS?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for LRGC and 0.15% for QUS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 1.54), 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.