ATFV vs LRGC
Alger 35 ETF vs AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF
Which is better, ATFV or LRGC?
Each has led over a different period.
LRGC has a lower expense ratio. ATFV led over 3Y and the full window, LRGC over 1Y.
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 | ATFV | LRGC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.39%Best |
| AUM | $629M | $1.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.17% | 0.53% |
| Holdings | 36 | 72 |
| YTD Return | +10.86% | +10.99%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.47% | +13.29%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +37.88%Best | +20.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.24% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 23.6% | 12.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -29.0% | -19.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $26,910Best | $17,762 |
| Fund Family | Alger | AllianceBernstein L.P. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 4, 2021 | Sep 20, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 20, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.1 years).
ATFV vs LRGC 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 3.1 years both funds cover.
ATFV vs LRGC Performance
Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) is an ETF from Alger and AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF (LRGC) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P.. Over the past year ATFV returned +11.47% while LRGC returned +13.29%. Year to date, ATFV is up 10.86% versus a gain of 10.99% for LRGC.
Over three years, ATFV compounded at +37.88% per year against +20.81% for LRGC.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ATFV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.6% compared with 12.5% for LRGC. 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 -29.0% for ATFV and -19.4% for LRGC. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ATFV charges 0.55% per year while LRGC charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $39 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ATFV currently yields 0.17% against 0.53% for LRGC.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ATFV and LRGC you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ATFV or LRGC?
ATFV has an expense ratio of 0.55% while LRGC charges 0.39%. LRGC is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ATFV or LRGC?
Over the past year ATFV returned +11.47% vs +13.29% for LRGC, so LRGC leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ATFV or LRGC?
ATFV has been the more volatile fund at 23.6% annualized versus 12.5% for LRGC. Worst drawdown: ATFV -29.0% vs LRGC -19.4%.
Should I hold both ATFV and LRGC?
ATFV and LRGC have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, ATFV or LRGC?
ATFV yields 0.17% while LRGC yields 0.53%, so LRGC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LRGC better than ATFV?
LRGC has a lower expense ratio. ATFV led over 3Y and the full window, LRGC over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.