LRGF vs. FFLC

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

LRGF (iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF) and FFLC (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. LRGF is passively managed, while FFLC is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LRGF returned 14.20%/yr vs 16.05%/yr for FFLC. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LRGF charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for FFLC.

Performance

LRGF vs. FFLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LRGF having a 11.29% return and FFLC slightly lower at 11.01%.

LRGF

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 6.67%
• YTD: 11.29%
• 6M: 11.73%
• 1Y: 26.79%
• 3Y*: 23.10%
• 5Y*: 14.20%
• 10Y*: 14.11%

FFLC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 3.36%
• YTD: 11.01%
• 6M: 12.12%
• 1Y: 28.51%
• 3Y*: 23.48%
• 5Y*: 16.05%
• 10Y*: —

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

LRGF vs. FFLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LRGF iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF	11.29%	16.48%	26.59%	25.85%	-14.77%	25.01%	20.08%
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	11.01%	17.67%	27.89%	25.07%	-0.04%	24.53%	18.76%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGF and FFLC is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.90

The correlation between LRGF and FFLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGF vs. FFLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGF	FFLC
Technology	35.6%	32.3%
Financial Services	12.5%	11.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.2%	10.9%
Healthcare	9.1%	8.1%
Communication Services	8.2%	11.8%
Industrials	8.1%	10.8%
Consumer Defensive	6.0%	4.1%
Energy	3.7%	4.8%
Utilities	2.3%	2.6%
Basic Materials	2.0%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.3%	1.1%

Return for Risk

LRGF vs. FFLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGF

LRGF Risk / Return Rank: 65
LRGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
LRGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
LRGF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LRGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
LRGF Martin Ratio Rank: 68

FFLC

FFLC Risk / Return Rank: 65
FFLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FFLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
FFLC Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FFLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
FFLC Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

LRGF vs. FFLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC). 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.

	LRGF	FFLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	2.24	0.00
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	3.06	+0.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.40	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	2.93	+0.15
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.80	13.29	-0.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LRGF vs. FFLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGF Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is comparable to the FFLC Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGF and FFLC, 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

	LRGF	FFLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.24	2.24	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84	0.95	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.77	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	1.18	-0.48

Drawdowns

LRGF vs. FFLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGF drawdown since its inception was -36.03%, which is greater than FFLC's maximum drawdown of -19.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGF and FFLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGF	FFLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.03%	-19.72%	-16.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.92%	-9.98%	+1.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.44%	-19.72%	+0.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.62%	-19.72%	-1.90%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.54%	-2.99%	-1.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.14%	2.20%	-0.06%

Volatility

LRGF vs. FFLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) is 2.79%, while Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) has a volatility of 3.10%. This indicates that LRGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGF	FFLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.79%	3.10%	-0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.07%	9.72%	-0.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.04%	12.79%	-0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.02%	16.91%	+0.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.31%	17.65%	+0.66%

LRGF vs. FFLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FFLC's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGF vs. FFLC - Dividend Comparison

LRGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, more than FFLC's 0.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	0.99%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LRGF iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF	1.05%	1.16%	1.23%	1.49%	1.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.76%	3.27%	1.68%	1.56%	0.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGF and FFLC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, LRGF and FFLC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, LRGF or FFLC?

FFLC has higher volatility (3.10%) compared to LRGF (2.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGF dropped -36.03% vs FFLC's -19.72%.

Which ETF is better, LRGF or FFLC?

On 5-year performance, FFLC leads with 16.05% vs 14.20% for LRGF. On fees, LRGF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, LRGF has been the lower-risk option at 2.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGF or FFLC?

Over the 5-year period, FFLC has performed better with a 16.05% return vs 14.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGF or FFLC?

LRGF is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for FFLC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LRGF or FFLC?

LRGF has the higher dividend yield at 1.05%, compared with 0.99% for FFLC.

What is the main difference between LRGF and FFLC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LRGF and 0.38% for FFLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 2.24), 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.