LRGG vs. MFUS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and MFUS (PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LRGG is actively managed, while MFUS is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -1.59% vs 30.42% for MFUS. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for MFUS.

Performance

LRGG vs. MFUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). 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 MFUS's 18.31% return.

LRGG

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

MFUS

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 3.47%
• YTD: 18.31%
• 6M: 17.50%
• 1Y: 30.42%
• 3Y*: 22.30%
• 5Y*: 13.48%
• 10Y*: —

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

LRGG vs. MFUS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-8.45%	7.65%	9.34%
MFUS PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF	18.31%	16.02%	8.40%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and MFUS is 0.50, 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	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2024	0.62

The correlation between LRGG and MFUS shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (1 year) to 0.62 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRGG vs. MFUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGG	MFUS
Technology	46.8%	24.7%
Financial Services	18.2%	12.0%
Industrials	11.3%	12.2%
Healthcare	8.7%	13.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	10.5%
Communication Services	7.1%	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	9.7%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.7%
Basic Materials	-	2.8%
Energy	-	6.4%
Utilities	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. MFUS — 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

MFUS

MFUS Risk / Return Rank: 87
MFUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
MFUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
MFUS Omega Ratio Rank: 85
MFUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
MFUS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. MFUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). 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	MFUS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.11	2.73	-2.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.06	3.86	-3.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.49	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	4.79	-4.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	19.46	-19.67

LRGG vs. MFUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the MFUS Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG and MFUS, 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. MFUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum MFUS drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and MFUS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	MFUS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-35.21%	+16.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-6.39%	-12.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.43%	-0.03%	-11.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.37%	-3.98%	-0.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.40%	1.57%	+5.83%

Volatility

LRGG vs. MFUS - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) has a higher volatility of 5.54% compared to PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS) at 4.10%. This indicates that LRGG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGG	MFUS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.54%	4.10%	+1.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.75%	8.84%	+2.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.27%	11.22%	+3.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.74%	15.08%	+1.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.74%	17.35%	-0.61%

LRGG vs. MFUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than MFUS's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGG vs. MFUS - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, less than MFUS's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
MFUS PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF	1.33%	1.54%	1.45%	1.96%	2.07%	1.35%	1.72%	1.89%	1.69%	1.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and MFUS in my portfolio?

LRGG and MFUS have a correlation of 0.50, 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 MFUS?

LRGG has higher volatility (5.54%) compared to MFUS (4.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs MFUS's -35.21%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or MFUS?

On 1-year performance, MFUS leads with 30.42% vs -1.59% for LRGG. On fees, MFUS is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, MFUS has been the lower-risk option at 4.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGG or MFUS?

Over the 1-year period, MFUS has performed better with a 30.42% 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 MFUS?

MFUS is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LRGG.

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

MFUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.17% for LRGG.

What is the main difference between LRGG and MFUS?

They also come from different issuers: Nomura and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 0.30% for MFUS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MFUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 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.