PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LRGG vs. DARP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LRGG vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGG achieves a -5.47% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 32.67% return.


LRGG

1D
-1.96%
1M
0.76%
YTD
-5.47%
6M
-4.88%
1Y
1.39%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

DARP

1D
-0.76%
1M
8.18%
YTD
32.67%
6M
34.22%
1Y
82.62%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LRGG vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
LRGG
Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF
-5.47%7.65%8.81%
DARP
Grizzle Growth ETF
32.67%40.19%9.18%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and DARP is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2024

0.71

The correlation between LRGG and DARP shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.70 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRGG vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LRGG
DARP

Technology

45.3%
45.8%

Financial Services

18.7%

-

Industrials

11.7%
12.0%

Healthcare

8.7%
1.4%

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%
6.6%

Communication Services

7.7%
19.4%

Consumer Defensive

1.8%

-

Real Estate

1.8%

-

Basic Materials

-

4.7%

Energy

-

9.9%

Utilities

-

5.4%

Technology

LRGG
45.3%
DARP
45.8%

Financial Services

LRGG
18.7%
DARP

-

Industrials

LRGG
11.7%
DARP
12.0%

Healthcare

LRGG
8.7%
DARP
1.4%

Consumer Cyclical

LRGG
8.0%
DARP
6.6%

Communication Services

LRGG
7.7%
DARP
19.4%

Consumer Defensive

LRGG
1.8%
DARP

-

Real Estate

LRGG
1.8%
DARP

-

Basic Materials

LRGG

-

DARP
4.7%

Energy

LRGG

-

DARP
9.9%

Utilities

LRGG

-

DARP
5.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LRGG vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGG
LRGG Risk / Return Rank: 1010
Overall Rank
LRGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LRGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 1010
Sortino Ratio Rank
LRGG Omega Ratio Rank: 1010
Omega Ratio Rank
LRGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1010
Calmar Ratio Rank
LRGG Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

DARP
DARP Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
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. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


LRGGDARPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.03

1.54

-0.52

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.07

7.03

-6.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.20

26.75

-26.56

LRGG vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is 0.10, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG and DARP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LRGGDARPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.10

3.59

-3.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

1.49

-1.18

Drawdowns

LRGG vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum DARP drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and DARP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LRGGDARPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.94%

-30.27%

+11.33%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.94%

-11.82%

-7.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.55%

-0.76%

-7.79%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.26%

-4.64%

+0.38%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.10%

3.10%

+4.00%

Volatility

LRGG vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is 4.08%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 7.07%. This indicates that LRGG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LRGGDARPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.08%

7.07%

-2.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.95%

17.49%

-6.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.68%

23.16%

-9.48%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.65%

26.11%

-9.46%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.65%

26.11%

-9.46%

LRGG vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

LRGG vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than DARP's 0.33% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
DARP
Grizzle Growth ETF
0.33%0.43%1.93%0.32%
LRGG
Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF
0.16%0.16%0.13%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


LRGG and DARP have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DARP has higher volatility (7.07%) compared to LRGG (4.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs DARP's -30.27%.

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 82.62% vs 1.39% for LRGG. On fees, LRGG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, LRGG has been the lower-risk option at 4.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 82.62% return vs 1.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LRGG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.16% for LRGG.

They also come from different issuers: Nomura and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 0.75% for DARP.

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 0.10), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LRGG and DARP

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer