FFLS vs. LBAY

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FFLS (The Future Fund Long/Short ETF) and LBAY (Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF) are both Long-Short funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FFLS returned -0.45% vs 9.13% for LBAY. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FFLS charges 1.75%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for LBAY.

Performance

FFLS vs. LBAY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLS achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly lower than LBAY's 6.83% return.

FFLS

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 4.09%
• YTD: 0.41%
• 6M: 0.19%
• 1Y: -0.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LBAY

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: -0.47%
• YTD: 6.83%
• 6M: 9.25%
• 1Y: 9.13%
• 3Y*: 3.68%
• 5Y*: 3.91%
• 10Y*: —

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

FFLS vs. LBAY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	0.41%	7.49%	17.71%	2.03%
LBAY Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF	6.83%	4.08%	-3.49%	1.63%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLS and LBAY is -0.02, 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	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2023	0.01

FFLS vs. LBAY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLS	LBAY
Technology	14.4%	2.8%
Healthcare	10.1%	5.5%
Industrials	8.4%	12.5%
Communication Services	7.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.9%	4.3%
Energy	4.8%	11.4%
Real Estate	2.6%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	16.3%
Basic Materials	-	20.8%
Utilities	-	11.2%
Financial Services	-4.2%	15.3%

Return for Risk

FFLS vs. LBAY — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLS

FFLS Risk / Return Rank: 8
FFLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
FFLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Omega Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
FFLS Martin Ratio Rank: 9

LBAY

LBAY Risk / Return Rank: 19
LBAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
LBAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
LBAY Omega Ratio Rank: 19
LBAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
LBAY Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

FFLS vs. LBAY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY). 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.

	FFLS	LBAY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	0.60	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.01	1.00	-1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.12	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	0.77	-0.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	1.94	-2.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFLS vs. LBAY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLS Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the LBAY Sharpe Ratio of 0.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLS and LBAY, 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

	FFLS	LBAY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05	0.60	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.29	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.82	0.59	+0.23

Drawdowns

FFLS vs. LBAY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLS drawdown since its inception was -11.05%, smaller than the maximum LBAY drawdown of -15.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLS and LBAY.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLS	LBAY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.05%	-15.99%	+4.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.05%	-11.91%	+0.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.57%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.32%	-10.34%	+6.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.09%	-6.80%	+3.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.07%	4.71%	+0.36%

Volatility

FFLS vs. LBAY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) is 3.51%, while Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY) has a volatility of 3.80%. This indicates that FFLS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LBAY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLS	LBAY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.51%	3.80%	-0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.95%	12.82%	-5.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.94%	15.26%	-6.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.23%	13.59%	-2.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.23%	13.73%	-2.50%

FFLS vs. LBAY - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLS has a 1.75% expense ratio, which is higher than LBAY's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLS vs. LBAY - Dividend Comparison

FFLS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.55%, more than LBAY's 3.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	6.55%	6.58%	3.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LBAY Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF	3.79%	3.80%	3.77%	3.47%	2.74%	2.96%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLS and LBAY in my portfolio?

FFLS and LBAY have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLS or LBAY?

LBAY has higher volatility (3.80%) compared to FFLS (3.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLS dropped -11.05% vs LBAY's -15.99%.

Which ETF is better, FFLS or LBAY?

On 1-year performance, LBAY leads with 9.13% vs -0.45% for FFLS. On fees, LBAY is cheaper at 1.09% per year. On volatility, FFLS has been the lower-risk option at 3.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLS or LBAY?

Over the 1-year period, LBAY has performed better with a 9.13% return vs -0.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLS or LBAY?

LBAY is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.75% for FFLS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFLS or LBAY?

FFLS has the higher dividend yield at 6.55%, compared with 3.79% for LBAY.

What is the main difference between FFLS and LBAY?

They also come from different issuers: The Future Fund and Toroso Investments. Their fees differ too: 1.75% for FFLS and 1.09% for LBAY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LBAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.60 vs -0.05), 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.