FEBZ vs. OCTZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF) and OCTZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (October) ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds from TrueShares. FEBZ is passively managed, while OCTZ is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FEBZ returned 11.22%/yr vs 11.10%/yr for OCTZ. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and TrueShares Structured Outcome (October) ETF (OCTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FEBZ having a 7.99% return and OCTZ slightly higher at 8.27%.

FEBZ

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 7.99%
• 6M: 7.75%
• 1Y: 20.13%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 11.22%
• 10Y*: —

OCTZ

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 4.25%
• YTD: 8.27%
• 6M: 8.27%
• 1Y: 20.60%
• 3Y*: 16.44%
• 5Y*: 11.10%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	7.99%	12.97%	16.88%	20.65%	-10.32%	20.51%
OCTZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (October) ETF	8.27%	12.89%	18.89%	18.18%	-10.23%	20.01%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBZ and OCTZ is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.99
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2021	0.99

The correlation between FEBZ and OCTZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEBZ	OCTZ
Technology	35.3%	35.3%
Financial Services	13.4%	13.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	10.6%
Communication Services	9.9%	9.9%
Healthcare	8.8%	8.8%
Industrials	7.8%	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	5.2%
Energy	3.0%	3.0%
Utilities	2.5%	2.5%
Real Estate	2.0%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.6%	1.6%

Return for Risk

FEBZ vs. OCTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBZ

FEBZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
FEBZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FEBZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
FEBZ Martin Ratio Rank: 67

OCTZ

OCTZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
OCTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
OCTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
OCTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
OCTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
OCTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and TrueShares Structured Outcome (October) ETF (OCTZ). 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.

	FEBZ	OCTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	2.21	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.08	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.40	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	2.83	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.21	12.00	+0.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is comparable to the OCTZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBZ and OCTZ, 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

	FEBZ	OCTZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	2.21	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	0.90	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	1.07	-0.07

Drawdowns

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBZ drawdown since its inception was -17.50%, which is greater than OCTZ's maximum drawdown of -15.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBZ and OCTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBZ	OCTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.50%	-15.82%	-1.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	-7.31%	+0.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	-14.07%	-0.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.50%	-15.82%	-1.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.49%	-0.44%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.32%	-3.16%	-0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	1.72%	-0.07%

Volatility

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) is 2.29%, while TrueShares Structured Outcome (October) ETF (OCTZ) has a volatility of 2.47%. This indicates that FEBZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OCTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBZ	OCTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	2.47%	-0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.09%	7.26%	-0.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.34%	9.39%	-0.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.47%	12.40%	+0.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.35%	12.37%	-0.02%

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FEBZ and OCTZ have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

FEBZ vs. OCTZ - Dividend Comparison

FEBZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, less than OCTZ's 3.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	2.96%	3.20%	3.88%	6.81%	0.00%
OCTZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (October) ETF	3.69%	3.99%	1.26%	3.28%	0.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBZ and OCTZ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, FEBZ and OCTZ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FEBZ or OCTZ?

OCTZ has higher volatility (2.47%) compared to FEBZ (2.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBZ dropped -17.50% vs OCTZ's -15.82%.

Which ETF is better, FEBZ or OCTZ?

On 5-year performance, FEBZ leads with 11.22% vs 11.10% for OCTZ. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, FEBZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBZ or OCTZ?

Over the 5-year period, FEBZ has performed better with a 11.22% return vs 11.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBZ or OCTZ?

FEBZ and OCTZ have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBZ or OCTZ?

OCTZ has the higher dividend yield at 3.69%, compared with 2.96% for FEBZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OCTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 2.17), 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.