AFGR vs LCLG
First Trust Active Factor Large Cap Growth ETF vs Logan Capital Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, AFGR or LCLG?
LCLG has been ahead.
AFGR has a lower expense ratio. LCLG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. LCLG is less concentrated, with 45.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AFGR | LCLG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.65%Best | 0.90% |
| AUM | $93M | $108M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.01% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 91 | 114 |
| YTD Return | +7.06% | +10.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.34% | +13.02%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.98% | +25.89%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.15% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.3%Best | 19.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -26.6% | -25.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.2 years | $19,006 | $21,446Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 47.0% | 45.6%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Logan Capital |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 20, 2020 | Aug 8, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 8, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (4.2 years).
AFGR vs LCLG growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 4.2 years both funds cover.
AFGR vs LCLG Performance
First Trust Active Factor Large Cap Growth ETF (AFGR) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Logan Capital Large Cap Growth ETF (LCLG) is an ETF from Logan Capital. Over the past year AFGR returned +5.34% while LCLG returned +13.02%. Year to date, AFGR is up 7.06% versus a gain of 10.21% for LCLG.
Over three years, AFGR compounded at +21.98% per year against +25.89% for LCLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, LCLG has the edge at +19.92% annualized vs +16.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LCLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.6% compared with 19.3% for AFGR. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -26.6% for AFGR and -25.8% for LCLG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFGR charges 0.65% per year while LCLG charges 0.90%. On a $10,000 position that is $65 vs $90 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFGR currently yields 0.01% against 0.00% for LCLG.
Holdings Overlap
35.6% of AFGR's money is in holdings LCLG also owns. 55.4% of LCLG's money is in holdings AFGR also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
16 positions in common, counted across the 90 positions we hold weights for in AFGR and 55 in LCLG, against full books of 91 and 114.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 36 positions for LCLG that do not appear in our book for AFGR (41.7% of the fund), and 73 for AFGR that do not appear in LCLG (63.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in AFGR | Weight in LCLG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 10.83% | 3.67% | 7.16% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.39% | 4.98% | 0.59% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.14% | 6.09% | 3.95% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.94% | 3.86% | 0.08% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.08% | 4.43% | 1.35% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.98% | 4.03% | 1.05% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.53% | 5.98% | 5.45% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 0.77% | 4.80% | 4.03% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.95% | 3.56% | 1.61% |
| FASTFastenal Co. | 0.96% | 3.11% | 2.15% |
55.4% of LCLG is already inside AFGR.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AFGR or LCLG?
AFGR has an expense ratio of 0.65% while LCLG charges 0.90%. AFGR is the cheaper option, by $25 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFGR or LCLG?
Over the past year AFGR returned +5.34% vs +13.02% for LCLG, so LCLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), AFGR annualized +16.52% vs +19.92% for LCLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFGR or LCLG?
LCLG has been the more volatile fund at 19.6% annualized versus 19.3% for AFGR. Worst drawdown: AFGR -26.6% vs LCLG -25.8%.
Should I hold both AFGR and LCLG?
AFGR and LCLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between AFGR and LCLG?
55.4% of LCLG's money is in holdings AFGR also owns. 55.4% of LCLG's is in holdings AFGR also owns. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 90 positions we hold weights for in AFGR and 55 in LCLG.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFGR or LCLG?
AFGR yields 0.01% while LCLG yields 0.00%, so AFGR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LCLG better than AFGR?
AFGR has a lower expense ratio. LCLG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. LCLG is less concentrated, with 45.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.