LRGG vs TFGZ
Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF vs Thornburg Focus Growth Fund ETF
Which is better, LRGG or TFGZ?
TFGZ has been ahead.
LRGG has a lower expense ratio. TFGZ led over 1Y. TFGZ is less concentrated, with 49.4% 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 | TFGZ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.44%Best | 0.79% |
| AUM | $295M | $12M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.15% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 44 | 43 |
| YTD Return | +3.29% | +16.33%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.58% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 71.4% | 49.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd | Thornburg Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 14, 2024 | Apr 1, 2026 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
LRGG vs TFGZ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
LRGG vs TFGZ Performance
Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is an ETF from Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd and Thornburg Focus Growth Fund ETF (TFGZ) is an ETF from Thornburg Investment Management. Year to date, LRGG is up 3.29% versus a gain of 16.33% for TFGZ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LRGG charges 0.44% per year while TFGZ charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $44 vs $79 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LRGG currently yields 0.15% against 0.00% for TFGZ.
Holdings Overlap
14.8% of LRGG's money is in holdings TFGZ also owns. 12.9% of TFGZ's money is in holdings LRGG also owns.
LRGG and TFGZ share little of their money.
3 positions in common, counted across the 21 positions we hold weights for in LRGG and 42 in TFGZ, against full books of 44 and 43.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 31 positions for TFGZ that do not appear in our book for LRGG (72.0% of the fund), and 15 for LRGG that do not appear in TFGZ (74.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LRGG and TFGZ 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, LRGG or TFGZ?
LRGG has an expense ratio of 0.44% while TFGZ charges 0.79%. LRGG is the cheaper option, by $35 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between LRGG and TFGZ?
14.8% of LRGG's money is in holdings TFGZ also owns. 12.9% of TFGZ's is in holdings LRGG also owns. They hold 3 positions in common, counted across the 21 positions we hold weights for in LRGG and 42 in TFGZ.
Which pays a higher dividend, LRGG or TFGZ?
LRGG yields 0.15% while TFGZ yields 0.00%, so LRGG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TFGZ better than LRGG?
LRGG has a lower expense ratio. TFGZ led over 1Y. TFGZ is less concentrated, with 49.4% 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.