LRGG vs NBGX
Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF vs Neuberger Berman Growth ETF
Which is better, LRGG or NBGX?
NBGX has been ahead.
NBGX led over 1Y and the full window. NBGX is less concentrated, with 53.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 71.4%.
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 | LRGG | NBGX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.44%Tie | 0.44%Tie |
| AUM | $295M | $15M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.15% | 0.38% |
| Holdings | 44 | 112 |
| YTD Return | +3.29% | +8.10%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.58% | +9.56%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.1%Best | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.9%Best | -21.6% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $11,008 | $12,451Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 71.4% | 53.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd | Neuberger Berman ETF Trust |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 14, 2024 | Dec 18, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).
LRGG vs NBGX 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
LRGG vs NBGX Performance
Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is an ETF from Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd and Neuberger Berman Growth ETF (NBGX) is an ETF from Neuberger Berman ETF Trust. Over the past year LRGG returned +3.58% while NBGX returned +9.56%. Year to date, LRGG is up 3.29% versus a gain of 8.10% for NBGX.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NBGX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 13.1% for LRGG. 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 -18.9% for LRGG and -21.6% for NBGX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LRGG charges 0.44% per year while NBGX charges 0.44%. On a $10,000 position that is $44 vs $44 annually. On income, LRGG currently yields 0.15% against 0.38% for NBGX.
Holdings Overlap
63.2% of LRGG's money is in holdings NBGX also owns. 37.5% of NBGX's money is in holdings LRGG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
11 positions in common, counted across the 21 positions we hold weights for in LRGG and 58 in NBGX, against full books of 44 and 112.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 44 positions for NBGX that do not appear in our book for LRGG (58.5% of the fund), and 9 for LRGG that do not appear in NBGX (33.6%).
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 LRGG | Weight in NBGX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 17.15% | 10.67% | 6.48% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 9.02% | 5.36% | 3.66% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.88% | 4.43% | 2.45% |
| 2330:TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 6.23% | 2.90% | 3.33% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.49% | 3.91% | 0.42% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 4.60% | 2.38% | 2.22% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 4.04% | 1.51% | 2.53% |
| ISRGIntuitive Surgical Inc. | 4.50% | 0.42% | 4.08% |
| ASL:ASAsml Holding Nv Unsponsored Adr Ordinary Shares | 1.53% | 3.30% | 1.77% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.42% | 2.16% | 0.26% |
63.2% of LRGG is already inside NBGX.
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, LRGG or NBGX?
LRGG has an expense ratio of 0.44% while NBGX charges 0.44%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, LRGG or NBGX?
Over the past year LRGG returned +3.58% vs +9.56% for NBGX, so NBGX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LRGG annualized +5.48% vs +12.95% for NBGX. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LRGG or NBGX?
NBGX has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 13.1% for LRGG. Worst drawdown: LRGG -18.9% vs NBGX -21.6%.
Should I hold both LRGG and NBGX?
LRGG and NBGX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between LRGG and NBGX?
63.2% of LRGG's money is in holdings NBGX also owns. 37.5% of NBGX's is in holdings LRGG also owns. They hold 11 positions in common, counted across the 21 positions we hold weights for in LRGG and 58 in NBGX.
Which pays a higher dividend, LRGG or NBGX?
LRGG yields 0.15% while NBGX yields 0.38%, so NBGX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NBGX better than LRGG?
NBGX led over 1Y and the full window. NBGX is less concentrated, with 53.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 71.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.