FEAT vs. LQTI

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF (FEAT) and FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI).

FEAT and LQTI are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FEAT is a passively managed fund by YieldMax that tracks the performance of the Nasdaq Dorsey Wright Tactical Option Income Strategy Index. It was launched on Dec 16, 2024. LQTI is an actively managed fund by FT Vest. It was launched on Feb 11, 2025.

Performance

FEAT vs. LQTI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF (FEAT) and FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FEAT vs. LQTI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FEAT YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF	-16.45%	-11.82%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	-0.52%	6.69%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEAT achieves a -16.45% return, which is significantly lower than LQTI's -0.52% return.

FEAT

• 1D: 4.90%
• 1M: -2.24%
• YTD: -16.45%
• 6M: -27.06%
• 1Y: -9.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LQTI

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -1.92%
• YTD: -0.52%
• 6M: 0.25%
• 1Y: 4.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEAT vs. LQTI - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEAT has a 1.28% expense ratio, which is higher than LQTI's 0.65% expense ratio.

FEAT

YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF

LQTI

FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF

Return for Risk

FEAT vs. LQTI — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEAT

FEAT Risk / Return Rank: 6
FEAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
FEAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
FEAT Omega Ratio Rank: 6
FEAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
FEAT Martin Ratio Rank: 6

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 40
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 32
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

FEAT vs. LQTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF (FEAT) 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.

	FEAT	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.32	0.74	-1.06
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.25	1.03	-1.28
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.14	-0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.29	1.41	-1.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.70	4.29	-4.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEAT vs. LQTI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEAT Sharpe Ratio is -0.32, which is lower than the LQTI Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEAT and LQTI, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FEAT	LQTI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.32	0.74	-1.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.71	0.89	-1.61

Correlation

The correlation between FEAT and LQTI is 0.12, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

FEAT vs. LQTI - Dividend Comparison

FEAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 93.83%, more than LQTI's 9.45% yield.

	TTM	2025
FEAT YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF	93.83%	76.35%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.45%	7.01%

Drawdowns

FEAT vs. LQTI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEAT drawdown since its inception was -31.68%, which is greater than LQTI's maximum drawdown of -3.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEAT and LQTI.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEAT	LQTI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.68%	-3.41%	-28.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.68%	-3.41%	-28.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-28.34%	-2.11%	-26.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.15%	-0.78%	-11.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.03%	1.12%	+11.91%

Volatility

FEAT vs. LQTI - Volatility Comparison

YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF (FEAT) has a higher volatility of 10.59% compared to FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) at 2.67%. This indicates that FEAT'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

	FEAT	LQTI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.59%	2.67%	+7.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.69%	3.87%	+19.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.35%	6.23%	+23.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.11%	6.12%	+24.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.11%	6.12%	+24.99%