EFAA vs. LQTI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EFAA (Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF) and LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EFAA returned 18.64% vs 5.55% for LQTI. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EFAA charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LQTI.

Performance

EFAA vs. LQTI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF (EFAA) 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, EFAA achieves a 6.56% return, which is significantly higher than LQTI's 0.63% return.

EFAA

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 2.66%
• YTD: 6.56%
• 6M: 8.40%
• 1Y: 18.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LQTI

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 0.63%
• 6M: 0.68%
• 1Y: 5.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFAA vs. LQTI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EFAA Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF	6.56%	18.65%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	0.63%	6.69%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAA and LQTI is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	0.35

Return for Risk

EFAA vs. LQTI — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAA

EFAA Risk / Return Rank: 44
EFAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
EFAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
EFAA Omega Ratio Rank: 46
EFAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
EFAA Martin Ratio Rank: 45

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 31
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.

EFAA vs. LQTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF (EFAA) 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.

	EFAA	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.10	+0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	1.60	+0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.19	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	1.64	+0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.15	5.02	+2.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFAA vs. LQTI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAA Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is higher than the LQTI Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAA 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

	EFAA	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	1.10	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.15	0.94	+0.20

Drawdowns

EFAA vs. LQTI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAA drawdown since its inception was -11.97%, which is greater than LQTI's maximum drawdown of -3.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAA and LQTI.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFAA	LQTI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.97%	-3.41%	-8.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.14%	-3.41%	-6.73%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.41%	-0.97%	+0.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.03%	-0.88%	-1.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.61%	1.11%	+1.50%

Volatility

EFAA vs. LQTI - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF (EFAA) has a higher volatility of 3.49% compared to FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) at 1.67%. This indicates that EFAA'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

	EFAA	LQTI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.49%	1.67%	+1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.75%	4.04%	+5.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.95%	5.12%	+6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.96%	5.97%	+6.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.96%	5.97%	+6.99%

EFAA vs. LQTI - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAA has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than LQTI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFAA vs. LQTI - Dividend Comparison

EFAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.07%, less than LQTI's 9.07% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
EFAA Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF	8.07%	7.94%	3.29%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.07%	7.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFAA and LQTI in my portfolio?

EFAA and LQTI have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFAA or LQTI?

EFAA has higher volatility (3.49%) compared to LQTI (1.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAA dropped -11.97% vs LQTI's -3.41%.

Which ETF is better, EFAA or LQTI?

On 1-year performance, EFAA leads with 18.64% vs 5.55% for LQTI. On fees, EFAA is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, LQTI has been the lower-risk option at 1.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFAA or LQTI?

Over the 1-year period, EFAA has performed better with a 18.64% return vs 5.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFAA or LQTI?

EFAA is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LQTI.

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

LQTI has the higher dividend yield at 9.07%, compared with 8.07% for EFAA.

What is the main difference between EFAA and LQTI?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for EFAA and 0.65% for LQTI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.10), 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.