LRGG vs. SCHG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LRGG (Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LRGG is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Over the past year, LRGG returned -1.59% vs 20.89% for SCHG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LRGG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

LRGG vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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 SCHG's 2.76% return.

LRGG

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

SCHG

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: -2.59%
• YTD: 2.76%
• 6M: 2.11%
• 1Y: 20.89%
• 3Y*: 22.70%
• 5Y*: 13.68%
• 10Y*: 18.81%

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

LRGG vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRGG Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF	-8.45%	7.65%	9.34%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	2.76%	17.50%	19.56%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGG and SCHG is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2024	0.89

The correlation between LRGG and SCHG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGG vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRGG	SCHG
Technology	46.8%	46.7%
Financial Services	18.2%	6.6%
Industrials	11.3%	6.0%
Healthcare	8.7%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	12.4%
Communication Services	7.1%	15.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	1.6%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.5%
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

LRGG vs. SCHG — 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

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 33
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.11	1.30	-1.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.06	1.79	-1.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.23	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	1.28	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	4.19	-4.40

LRGG vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGG and SCHG, 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. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGG drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum SCHG drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGG and SCHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRGG	SCHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-34.59%	+15.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.94%	-16.41%	-2.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.59%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.43%	-5.16%	-6.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.37%	-5.20%	+0.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.40%	5.00%	+2.40%

Volatility

LRGG vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) have volatilities of 5.54% and 5.78%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRGG	SCHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.54%	5.78%	-0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.75%	12.50%	-0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.27%	16.21%	-1.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.74%	22.37%	-5.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.74%	21.61%	-4.87%

LRGG vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRGG vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

LRGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.17%, less than SCHG's 0.38% 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%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.38%	0.36%	0.39%	0.46%	0.55%	0.42%	0.52%	0.82%	1.27%	1.01%	1.04%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRGG and SCHG in my portfolio?

LRGG and SCHG have a correlation of 0.84, 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 SCHG?

SCHG has higher volatility (5.78%) compared to LRGG (5.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGG dropped -18.94% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

Which ETF is better, LRGG or SCHG?

On 1-year performance, SCHG leads with 20.89% vs -1.59% for LRGG. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, LRGG has been the lower-risk option at 5.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRGG or SCHG?

Over the 1-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 20.89% 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 SCHG?

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LRGG.

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

SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.17% for LRGG.

What is the main difference between LRGG and SCHG?

They also come from different issuers: Nomura and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LRGG and 0.04% for SCHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.30 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.