FSIG vs. LDSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FSIG (First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF) and LDSF (First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF) are both Short-Term Bond funds from First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FSIG returned 5.09%/yr vs 5.24%/yr for LDSF. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FSIG charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for LDSF.

Performance

FSIG vs. LDSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF (FSIG) and First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF (LDSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FSIG achieves a 0.46% return, which is significantly lower than LDSF's 0.89% return.

FSIG

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.20%
• 6M: 0.24%
• YTD: 0.46%
• 1Y: 2.90%
• 3Y*: 5.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.70%

LDSF

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -0.07%
• 6M: 0.45%
• YTD: 0.89%
• 1Y: 3.63%
• 3Y*: 5.24%
• 5Y*: 2.41%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.53%

*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)
FSIG First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF	$5.67M	$8.27M	$7.61M
LDSF First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF	$441.96K	$366.37K	$452.32K

FSIG vs. LDSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FSIG First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF	0.46%	6.66%	4.22%	6.22%	-4.37%	-0.08%
LDSF First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF	0.89%	6.82%	4.20%	6.53%	-5.47%	0.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FSIG and LDSF is 0.77, 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.	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2021	0.68

The correlation between FSIG and LDSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FSIG vs. LDSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSIG

FSIG Risk / Return Rank: 64
FSIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FSIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FSIG Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FSIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
FSIG Martin Ratio Rank: 68

LDSF

LDSF Risk / Return Rank: 79
LDSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
LDSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
LDSF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
LDSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
LDSF Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

FSIG vs. LDSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF (FSIG) and First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF (LDSF). 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.

	FSIG	LDSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	1.91	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	2.85	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.38	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	2.28	-0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.35	9.54	-1.19

FSIG vs. LDSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSIG Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is comparable to the LDSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSIG and LDSF, 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

FSIG vs. LDSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSIG drawdown since its inception was -6.93%, smaller than the maximum LDSF drawdown of -8.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSIG and LDSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSIG	LDSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.93%	-8.56%	+1.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.55%	-1.74%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.55%	-1.74%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-0.22%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.64%	-1.43%	-0.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.39%	0.42%	-0.03%

Volatility

FSIG vs. LDSF - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF (FSIG) has a higher volatility of 0.65% compared to First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF (LDSF) at 0.60%. This indicates that FSIG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LDSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FSIG	LDSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.65%	0.60%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.94%	1.78%	+0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25%	2.08%	+0.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.94%	3.09%	-0.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.94%	3.16%	-0.22%

FSIG vs. LDSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSIG has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than LDSF's 0.87% expense ratio.

Dividends

FSIG vs. LDSF - Dividend Comparison

FSIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.84%, more than LDSF's 4.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FSIG First Trust Limited Duration Investment Grade Corporate ETF	4.84%	4.73%	4.61%	4.42%	2.48%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%
LDSF First Trust Low Duration Strategic Focus ETF	4.68%	4.52%	4.53%	4.08%	2.61%	1.97%	2.65%	3.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FSIG and LDSF in my portfolio?

FSIG and LDSF have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FSIG or LDSF?

FSIG has higher volatility (0.65%) compared to LDSF (0.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSIG dropped -6.93% vs LDSF's -8.56%.

Which ETF is better, FSIG or LDSF?

On 3-year performance, LDSF leads with 5.24% vs 5.09% for FSIG. On fees, FSIG is cheaper at 0.55% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FSIG or LDSF?

Over the 3-year period, LDSF has performed better with a 5.24% return vs 5.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FSIG or LDSF?

FSIG is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.87% for LDSF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FSIG or LDSF?

FSIG has the higher dividend yield at 4.84%, compared with 4.68% for LDSF.

What is the main difference between FSIG and LDSF?

Their fees differ too: 0.55% for FSIG and 0.87% for LDSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LDSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.44), 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.