LRGF vs SPY
iShares US Equity Factor ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Which is better, LRGF or SPY?
Nearly the same fund. LRGF costs less.
LRGF has a lower expense ratio. LRGF led over 3Y and 5Y, SPY over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. LRGF is less concentrated, with 35.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.2%.
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 | LRGF | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08%Best | 0.09% |
| AUM | $3.8B | $823.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.99% |
| Holdings | 296 | 1,515 |
| YTD Return | +13.98%Best | +13.53% |
| 1Y Return | +16.40% | +17.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.87%Best | +22.36% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.20%Best | +13.21% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2% | 15.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.0% | -34.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,424Best | $18,596 |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.6%Best | 38.2% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | State Street Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 28, 2015 | Jan 22, 1993 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 30, 2015 to Oct 14, 2026 (11.5 years).
LRGF vs SPY 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 11.5 years both funds cover.
LRGF vs SPY Performance
iShares US Equity Factor ETF (LRGF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management. Over the past year LRGF returned +16.40% while SPY returned +17.47%. Year to date, LRGF is up 13.98% versus a gain of 13.53% for SPY.
Over three years, LRGF compounded at +22.87% per year against +22.36% for SPY; over five years the annualized figures are +14.20% and +13.21% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, SPY has the edge at +12.83% annualized vs +11.40%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LRGF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 15.1% for SPY. 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 -36.0% for LRGF and -34.1% for SPY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LRGF charges 0.08% per year while SPY charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $9 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LRGF currently yields 1.06% against 0.99% for SPY.
Holdings Overlap
85.4% of LRGF's money is in holdings SPY also owns. 77.9% of SPY's money is in holdings LRGF also owns.
Most of LRGF is already inside SPY. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
203 positions in common, counted across the 303 positions we hold weights for in LRGF and 504 in SPY, against full books of 296 and 1,515.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 293 positions for SPY that do not appear in our book for LRGF (20.8% of the fund), and 89 for LRGF that do not appear in SPY (12.3%).
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 LRGF | Weight in SPY | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.79% | 7.78% | 0.01% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.77% | 7.45% | 0.68% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp_None_0 | 5.23% | 5.71% | 0.48% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.10% | 3.78% | 0.68% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 3.86% | 2.49% | 1.37% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.50% | 2.48% | 0.02% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 2.15% | 2.22% | 0.07% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 0.71% | 3.12% | 2.41% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.56% | 1.59% | 0.03% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co | 1.48% | 1.43% | 0.05% |
85.4% of LRGF is already inside SPY.
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, LRGF or SPY?
LRGF has an expense ratio of 0.08% while SPY charges 0.09%. LRGF is the cheaper option, by $1 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LRGF or SPY?
Over the past year LRGF returned +16.40% vs +17.47% for SPY, so SPY leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), LRGF annualized +11.40% vs +12.83% for SPY. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LRGF or SPY?
LRGF has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 15.1% for SPY. Worst drawdown: LRGF -36.0% vs SPY -34.1%.
Should I hold both LRGF and SPY?
LRGF and SPY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 LRGF and SPY?
85.4% of LRGF's money is in holdings SPY also owns. 77.9% of SPY's is in holdings LRGF also owns. They hold 203 positions in common, counted across the 303 positions we hold weights for in LRGF and 504 in SPY.
Which pays a higher dividend, LRGF or SPY?
LRGF yields 1.06% while SPY yields 0.99%, so LRGF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SPY better than LRGF?
LRGF has a lower expense ratio. LRGF led over 3Y and 5Y, SPY over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. LRGF is less concentrated, with 35.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.