LRGG vs. QWLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LRGG is actively managed, while QWLD is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -0.78% vs 19.11% for QWLD. Their 0.71 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

LRGG vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGG achieves a -2.31% return, which is significantly lower than QWLD's 9.39% return.

LRGG

• 1D: 1.46%
• 1M: 2.40%
• 6M: 1.42%
• YTD: -2.31%
• 1Y: -0.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.52%

QWLD

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 1.63%
• 6M: 6.46%
• YTD: 9.39%
• 1Y: 19.11%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: 10.03%
• 10Y*: 11.57%
• ALL TIME*: 10.49%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	$839.09K	$820.26K	$1.43M
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	$231.12K	$297.84K	$1.04M

LRGG vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-2.31%	7.65%	9.34%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	9.39%	17.93%	5.02%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and QWLD is 0.68, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2024	0.71

The correlation between LRGG and QWLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGG vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGG	QWLD
Technology	45.6%	24.9%
Financial Services	18.2%	16.5%
Industrials	12.5%	10.9%
Healthcare	9.0%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	6.3%
Communication Services	6.8%	9.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	8.1%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.0%
Basic Materials	-	2.5%
Energy	-	3.4%
Utilities	-	3.8%

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LRGG

LRGG Risk / Return Rank: 8
LRGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
LRGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
LRGG Omega Ratio Rank: 8
LRGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
LRGG Martin Ratio Rank: 9

QWLD

QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 80
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 82
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LRGG vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). 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	QWLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.18	1.93	-2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.14	2.75	-2.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.34	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.14	2.44	-2.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.34	10.67	-11.01

LRGG vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.18, which is lower than the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG and QWLD, 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. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum QWLD drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and QWLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	QWLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-31.89%	+12.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-7.66%	-11.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.40%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.84%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.49%	0.00%	-5.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.57%	-3.66%	-0.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.93%	1.75%	+6.18%

Volatility

LRGG vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) has a higher volatility of 4.65% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.30%. This indicates that LRGG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QWLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGG	QWLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	2.30%	+2.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.23%	7.73%	+4.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.01%	9.71%	+5.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.74%	13.51%	+3.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.74%	15.12%	+1.62%

LRGG vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LRGG vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than QWLD's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	0.16%	0.16%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	1.79%	1.85%	1.74%	1.78%	2.02%	1.77%	1.77%	2.13%	2.33%	2.73%	2.22%	3.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and QWLD in my portfolio?

LRGG and QWLD have a correlation of 0.68, 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 QWLD?

LRGG has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to QWLD (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or QWLD?

On 1-year performance, QWLD leads with 19.11% vs -0.78% for LRGG. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGG or QWLD?

Over the 1-year period, QWLD has performed better with a 19.11% return vs -0.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRGG or QWLD?

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

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

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.16% for LRGG.

What is the main difference between LRGG and QWLD?

They also come from different issuers: Nomura and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 0.30% for QWLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs -0.18), 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.