LRGG vs. FMTM
LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and FMTM (MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LRGG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Nomura, while FMTM is a Momentum fund. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -1.40% vs 51.66% for FMTM. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.45% expense ratio.
Performance
LRGG vs. FMTM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LRGG achieves a -3.89% return, which is significantly lower than FMTM's 23.84% return.
LRGG
- 1D
- 0.71%
- 1M
- 3.87%
- 6M
- -4.50%
- YTD
- -3.89%
- 1Y
- -1.40%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FMTM
- 1D
- -2.12%
- 1M
- -3.95%
- 6M
- 15.38%
- YTD
- 23.84%
- 1Y
- 51.66%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LRGG vs. FMTM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF | -3.89% | 12.08% |
FMTM MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF | 23.84% | 28.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between LRGG and FMTM is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 20, 2025 | 0.43 |
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. FMTM — Risk / Return Rank
LRGG
FMTM
LRGG vs. FMTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF (FMTM). 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 | FMTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.34 | -0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.09 | 4.28 | -4.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.21 | 15.09 | -15.30 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LRGG vs. FMTM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, which is greater than FMTM's maximum drawdown of -12.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and FMTM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LRGG | FMTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.94% | -12.12% | -6.82% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.94% | -12.12% | -6.82% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.02% | -8.80% | +1.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.49% | -2.03% | -2.46% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.72% | 3.43% | +4.29% |
Volatility
LRGG vs. FMTM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is 5.33%, while MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF (FMTM) has a volatility of 11.39%. This indicates that LRGG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FMTM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LRGG | FMTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.33% | 11.39% | -6.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.09% | 20.38% | -8.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.51% | 25.79% | -11.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.72% | 24.51% | -7.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.72% | 24.51% | -7.79% |
LRGG vs. FMTM - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both LRGG and FMTM have an expense ratio of 0.45%.
Dividends
LRGG vs. FMTM - Dividend Comparison
LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than FMTM's 0.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
FMTM MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF | 0.24% | 0.30% | 0.00% |
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF | 0.16% | 0.16% | 0.13% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LRGG and FMTM have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FMTM has higher volatility (11.39%) compared to LRGG (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs FMTM's -12.12%.
On 1-year performance, FMTM leads with 51.66% vs -1.40% for LRGG. Both ETFs have the same 0.45% expense ratio. On volatility, LRGG has been the lower-risk option at 5.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FMTM has performed better with a 51.66% return vs -1.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LRGG and FMTM have the same expense ratio: 0.45% per year.
FMTM has the higher dividend yield at 0.24%, compared with 0.16% for LRGG.
LRGG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while FMTM is Momentum.
FMTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 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.
Find the right allocation for LRGG and FMTM
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