LRGG vs. QLC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LRGG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Nomura, while QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index. LRGG is actively managed, while QLC is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -1.59% vs 32.11% for QLC. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QLC.

Performance

LRGG vs. QLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). 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 QLC's 10.83% return.

LRGG

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

QLC

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 0.76%
• YTD: 10.83%
• 6M: 10.21%
• 1Y: 32.11%
• 3Y*: 24.42%
• 5Y*: 15.27%
• 10Y*: 14.98%

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

LRGG vs. QLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-8.45%	7.65%	9.34%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	10.83%	23.26%	13.40%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and QLC is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2024	0.84

The correlation between LRGG and QLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGG vs. QLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGG	QLC
Technology	46.8%	37.8%
Financial Services	18.2%	13.2%
Industrials	11.3%	6.3%
Healthcare	8.7%	9.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	7.8%
Communication Services	7.1%	13.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	3.0%
Real Estate	1.8%	2.1%
Basic Materials	-	2.0%
Energy	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	3.1%

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. QLC — 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

QLC

QLC Risk / Return Rank: 80
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. QLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). 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	QLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.11	2.50	-2.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.06	3.40	-3.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.45	-0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	3.65	-3.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	16.63	-16.85

LRGG vs. QLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the QLC Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG and QLC, 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. QLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum QLC drawdown of -35.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and QLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	QLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-35.86%	+16.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-8.84%	-10.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.49%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.43%	-1.24%	-10.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.37%	-4.52%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.40%	1.94%	+5.46%

Volatility

LRGG vs. QLC - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) has a higher volatility of 5.54% compared to FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) at 4.66%. This indicates that LRGG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGG	QLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.54%	4.66%	+0.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.75%	10.28%	+1.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.27%	12.94%	+1.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.74%	16.91%	-0.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.74%	18.46%	-1.72%

LRGG vs. QLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than QLC's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGG vs. QLC - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, less than QLC's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	0.94%	0.94%	1.03%	1.26%	1.46%	0.96%	1.40%	1.91%	1.82%	1.29%	1.80%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and QLC in my portfolio?

LRGG and QLC have a correlation of 0.78, 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 QLC?

LRGG has higher volatility (5.54%) compared to QLC (4.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs QLC's -35.86%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or QLC?

On 1-year performance, QLC leads with 32.11% vs -1.59% for LRGG. On fees, QLC is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGG or QLC?

Over the 1-year period, QLC has performed better with a 32.11% 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 QLC?

QLC is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LRGG.

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

QLC has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.17% for LRGG.

What is the main difference between LRGG and QLC?

LRGG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Nomura and Northern Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 0.25% for QLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 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.