AEMS vs. LQTI

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

AEMS (Anfield Enhanced Market ETF) and LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Over the past year, AEMS returned 27.65% vs 3.49% for LQTI. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AEMS charges 1.21%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LQTI.

Performance

AEMS vs. LQTI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Anfield Enhanced Market ETF (AEMS) 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, AEMS achieves a 14.93% return, which is significantly higher than LQTI's -0.81% return.

AEMS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.33%
• 6M: 11.37%
• YTD: 14.93%
• 1Y: 27.65%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LQTI

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: -1.23%
• 6M: -0.95%
• YTD: -0.81%
• 1Y: 3.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AEMS vs. LQTI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AEMS Anfield Enhanced Market ETF	14.93%	11.86%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	-0.81%	3.42%

Correlation

The correlation between AEMS and LQTI is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.37

Return for Risk

AEMS vs. LQTI — Risk / Return Rank

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

AEMS

AEMS Risk / Return Rank: 57
AEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
AEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
AEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 57
AEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
AEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 68

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 24
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 20
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

AEMS vs. LQTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Anfield Enhanced Market ETF (AEMS) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AEMS	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	0.68	+0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	1.00	+0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.12	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.44	1.03	+1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.69	2.96	+6.74

AEMS vs. LQTI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AEMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is higher than the LQTI Sharpe Ratio of 0.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AEMS 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.

Drawdowns

AEMS vs. LQTI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AEMS drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, which is greater than LQTI's maximum drawdown of -3.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AEMS and LQTI.

Drawdown Indicators

	AEMS	LQTI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-3.41%	-7.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.37%	-3.41%	-7.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.91%	-2.40%	-6.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.66%	-0.91%	-0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	1.18%	+1.68%

Volatility

AEMS vs. LQTI - Volatility Comparison

Anfield Enhanced Market ETF (AEMS) has a higher volatility of 12.79% compared to FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) at 1.51%. This indicates that AEMS'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

	AEMS	LQTI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.79%	1.51%	+11.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.93%	4.13%	+13.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.40%	5.14%	+15.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.12%	5.93%	+14.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.12%	5.93%	+14.19%

AEMS vs. LQTI - Expense Ratio Comparison

AEMS has a 1.21% expense ratio, which is higher than LQTI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

AEMS vs. LQTI - Dividend Comparison

AEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 447.11%, more than LQTI's 9.25% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
AEMS Anfield Enhanced Market ETF	447.11%	7.53%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.25%	7.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AEMS and LQTI in my portfolio?

AEMS and LQTI have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AEMS or LQTI?

AEMS has higher volatility (12.79%) compared to LQTI (1.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AEMS dropped -11.37% vs LQTI's -3.41%.

Which ETF is better, AEMS or LQTI?

On 1-year performance, AEMS leads with 27.65% vs 3.49% for LQTI. On fees, LQTI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, LQTI has been the lower-risk option at 1.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AEMS or LQTI?

Over the 1-year period, AEMS has performed better with a 27.65% return vs 3.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AEMS or LQTI?

LQTI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.21% for AEMS.

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

AEMS has the higher dividend yield at 447.11%, compared with 9.25% for LQTI.

What is the main difference between AEMS and LQTI?

They also come from different issuers: Anfield and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 1.21% for AEMS and 0.65% for LQTI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AEMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.68), 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.