AAPW vs. LQTI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AAPW (AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF) and LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AAPW returned 59.54% vs 5.69% for LQTI. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AAPW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LQTI.

Performance

AAPW vs. LQTI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAPW achieves a 15.21% return, which is significantly higher than LQTI's 0.16% return.

AAPW

• 1D: -1.85%
• 1M: 14.30%
• YTD: 15.21%
• 6M: 9.47%
• 1Y: 59.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LQTI

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 0.16%
• 6M: -0.04%
• 1Y: 5.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AAPW vs. LQTI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	15.21%	8.56%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	0.16%	6.66%

Correlation

The correlation between AAPW and LQTI is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.23

Return for Risk

AAPW vs. LQTI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AAPW

AAPW Risk / Return Rank: 62
AAPW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
AAPW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
AAPW Omega Ratio Rank: 62
AAPW Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
AAPW Martin Ratio Rank: 51

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 32
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 29
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 34

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AAPW vs. LQTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AAPW	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	1.12	+1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	1.64	+1.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.19	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	1.68	+1.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.65	5.15	+3.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AAPW vs. LQTI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAPW Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is higher than the LQTI Sharpe Ratio of 1.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAPW and LQTI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AAPW	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	1.12	+1.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.88	-0.33

Drawdowns

AAPW vs. LQTI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAPW drawdown since its inception was -36.28%, which is greater than LQTI's maximum drawdown of -3.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAPW and LQTI.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAPW	LQTI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.28%	-3.41%	-32.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.36%	-3.41%	-13.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	-1.44%	-0.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-0.88%	-10.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.91%	1.11%	+5.80%

Volatility

AAPW vs. LQTI - Volatility Comparison

AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) has a higher volatility of 6.61% compared to FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) at 1.65%. This indicates that AAPW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQTI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAPW	LQTI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.61%	1.65%	+4.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.54%	4.02%	+15.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.56%	5.10%	+22.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.72%	5.97%	+28.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.72%	5.97%	+28.75%

AAPW vs. LQTI - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAPW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than LQTI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

AAPW vs. LQTI - Dividend Comparison

AAPW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 31.37%, more than LQTI's 9.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	31.37%	28.83%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.11%	7.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAPW and LQTI in my portfolio?

AAPW and LQTI have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAPW or LQTI?

AAPW has higher volatility (6.61%) compared to LQTI (1.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAPW dropped -36.28% vs LQTI's -3.41%.

Which ETF is better, AAPW or LQTI?

On 1-year performance, AAPW leads with 59.54% vs 5.69% for LQTI. On fees, LQTI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, LQTI has been the lower-risk option at 1.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AAPW or LQTI?

Over the 1-year period, AAPW has performed better with a 59.54% return vs 5.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AAPW or LQTI?

LQTI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AAPW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AAPW or LQTI?

AAPW has the higher dividend yield at 31.37%, compared with 9.11% for LQTI.

What is the main difference between AAPW and LQTI?

They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AAPW and 0.65% for LQTI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AAPW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 1.12), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.