LRGG vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LRGG is actively managed, while BIBL is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -1.59% vs 44.87% for BIBL. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

LRGG vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGG achieves a -8.45% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 27.35% return.

LRGG

• 1D: -1.68%
• 1M: -3.66%
• YTD: -8.45%
• 6M: -8.24%
• 1Y: -1.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIBL

• 1D: 1.71%
• 1M: 6.75%
• YTD: 27.35%
• 6M: 26.01%
• 1Y: 44.87%
• 3Y*: 23.31%
• 5Y*: 10.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

LRGG vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-8.45%	7.65%	9.34%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	27.35%	17.27%	2.81%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and BIBL is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2024	0.62

The correlation between LRGG and BIBL shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.62 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRGG vs. BIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGG	BIBL
Technology	46.8%	31.9%
Financial Services	18.2%	8.5%
Industrials	11.3%	27.2%
Healthcare	8.7%	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	0.3%
Communication Services	7.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	0.4%
Real Estate	1.8%	13.7%
Basic Materials	-	4.3%
Energy	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGG

LRGG Risk / Return Rank: 7
LRGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
LRGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
LRGG Omega Ratio Rank: 7
LRGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
LRGG Martin Ratio Rank: 7

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 87
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 83
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BIBL 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.

LRGG vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	LRGG	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.11	2.77	-2.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.06	3.63	-3.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.47	-0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	5.04	-5.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	21.50	-21.71

LRGG vs. BIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the BIBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG and BIBL, 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

LRGG vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum BIBL drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-36.12%	+17.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-8.94%	-10.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.43%	0.00%	-11.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.37%	-7.01%	+2.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.40%	2.09%	+5.31%

Volatility

LRGG vs. BIBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is 5.54%, while Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) has a volatility of 6.40%. This indicates that LRGG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGG	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.54%	6.40%	-0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.75%	13.46%	-1.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.27%	16.33%	-2.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.74%	19.74%	-3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.74%	21.10%	-4.36%

LRGG vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGG vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, less than BIBL's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.93%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	0.17%	0.16%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and BIBL in my portfolio?

LRGG and BIBL have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LRGG or BIBL?

BIBL has higher volatility (6.40%) compared to LRGG (5.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs BIBL's -36.12%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or BIBL?

On 1-year performance, BIBL leads with 44.87% vs -1.59% for LRGG. On fees, BIBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, LRGG has been the lower-risk option at 5.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGG or BIBL?

Over the 1-year period, BIBL has performed better with a 44.87% return vs -1.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGG or BIBL?

BIBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LRGG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LRGG or BIBL?

BIBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.17% for LRGG.

What is the main difference between LRGG and BIBL?

They also come from different issuers: Nomura and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 0.35% for BIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.77 vs -0.11), 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.