BABO vs. LQTI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BABO (YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF) and LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BABO returned 8.62% vs 5.69% for LQTI. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BABO charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LQTI.

Performance

BABO vs. LQTI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) 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, BABO achieves a -12.48% return, which is significantly lower than LQTI's 0.16% return.

BABO

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: -4.06%
• YTD: -12.48%
• 6M: -16.80%
• 1Y: 8.62%
• 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)

BABO vs. LQTI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF	-12.48%	14.96%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	0.16%	6.69%

Correlation

The correlation between BABO and LQTI is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	0.05

Return for Risk

BABO vs. LQTI — Risk / Return Rank

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

BABO

BABO Risk / Return Rank: 12
BABO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
BABO Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
BABO Omega Ratio Rank: 13
BABO Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
BABO Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

BABO vs. LQTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) 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.

	BABO	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	1.12	-0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.64	1.64	-0.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.19	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	1.68	-1.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.60	5.15	-4.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BABO vs. LQTI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BABO Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the LQTI Sharpe Ratio of 1.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BABO 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

	BABO	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	1.12	-0.87
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.88	-0.48

Drawdowns

BABO vs. LQTI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BABO drawdown since its inception was -29.37%, which is greater than LQTI's maximum drawdown of -3.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BABO and LQTI.

Drawdown Indicators

	BABO	LQTI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.37%	-3.41%	-25.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.37%	-3.41%	-25.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.47%	-1.44%	-25.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.68%	-0.88%	-12.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.49%	1.11%	+13.38%

Volatility

BABO vs. LQTI - Volatility Comparison

YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) has a higher volatility of 12.03% compared to FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) at 1.65%. This indicates that BABO'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

	BABO	LQTI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.03%	1.65%	+10.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.11%	4.02%	+20.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.12%	5.10%	+30.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.77%	5.97%	+30.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.77%	5.97%	+30.80%

BABO vs. LQTI - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BABO vs. LQTI - Dividend Comparison

BABO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 85.81%, more than LQTI's 9.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF	85.81%	85.50%	20.65%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.11%	7.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BABO and LQTI in my portfolio?

BABO and LQTI have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BABO or LQTI?

BABO has higher volatility (12.03%) compared to LQTI (1.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BABO dropped -29.37% vs LQTI's -3.41%.

Which ETF is better, BABO or LQTI?

On 1-year performance, BABO leads with 8.62% 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, BABO or LQTI?

Over the 1-year period, BABO has performed better with a 8.62% return vs 5.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BABO or LQTI?

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

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

BABO has the higher dividend yield at 85.81%, compared with 9.11% for LQTI.

What is the main difference between BABO and LQTI?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LQTI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.12 vs 0.25), 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.