FEBT vs. LITL

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

FEBT (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF) and LITL (Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FEBT is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while LITL is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Simplify. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FEBT returned 18.08% vs 33.27% for LITL. Their 0.72 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FEBT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.91%/yr for LITL.

Performance

FEBT vs. LITL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF (LITL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBT achieves a 10.17% return, which is significantly lower than LITL's 19.15% return.

FEBT

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 1.70%
• 6M: 8.29%
• YTD: 10.17%
• 1Y: 18.08%
• 3Y*: 15.84%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.98%

LITL

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: 0.67%
• 6M: 16.60%
• YTD: 19.15%
• 1Y: 33.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.65%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	$337.20K	$335.09K	$510.26K
LITL Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF	$106.79K	$72.97K	$61.45K

FEBT vs. LITL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	10.17%	17.64%
LITL Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF	19.15%	18.93%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBT and LITL is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2025	0.72

The correlation between FEBT and LITL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEBT vs. LITL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FEBT

FEBT Risk / Return Rank: 85
FEBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FEBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FEBT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FEBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
FEBT Martin Ratio Rank: 88

LITL

LITL Risk / Return Rank: 74
LITL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
LITL Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
LITL Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LITL Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
LITL Martin Ratio Rank: 77

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FEBT vs. LITL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) and Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF (LITL). 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.

	FEBT	LITL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	1.84	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.29	2.73	+0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.32	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.01	3.59	-0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.75	11.21	+3.54

FEBT vs. LITL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBT Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the LITL Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBT and LITL, 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

FEBT vs. LITL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBT drawdown since its inception was -13.19%, which is greater than LITL's maximum drawdown of -9.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBT and LITL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBT	LITL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.19%	-9.32%	-3.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.04%	-9.32%	+3.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.15%	+1.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.15%	-2.22%	+1.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.23%	2.97%	-1.74%

Volatility

FEBT vs. LITL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF (FEBT) is 2.32%, while Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF (LITL) has a volatility of 4.94%. This indicates that FEBT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LITL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBT	LITL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.32%	4.94%	-2.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.48%	12.50%	-6.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.95%	18.18%	-10.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.69%	18.49%	-8.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.69%	18.49%	-8.80%

FEBT vs. LITL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than LITL's 0.91% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBT vs. LITL - Dividend Comparison

FEBT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LITL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FEBT Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Feb ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%
LITL Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF	1.61%	0.71%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBT and LITL in my portfolio?

FEBT and LITL have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBT or LITL?

LITL has higher volatility (4.94%) compared to FEBT (2.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBT dropped -13.19% vs LITL's -9.32%.

Which ETF is better, FEBT or LITL?

On 1-year performance, LITL leads with 33.27% vs 18.08% for FEBT. On fees, FEBT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, FEBT has been the lower-risk option at 2.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBT or LITL?

Over the 1-year period, LITL has performed better with a 33.27% return vs 18.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBT or LITL?

FEBT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.91% for LITL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBT or LITL?

LITL has the higher dividend yield at 1.61%, compared with 0.00% for FEBT.

What is the main difference between FEBT and LITL?

FEBT is categorized as Options Trading, while LITL is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FEBT and 0.91% for LITL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEBT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.84), 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.