KMLM vs. LBAY

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

KMLM (KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF) and LBAY (Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF) are both Long-Short funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, KMLM returned 4.37%/yr vs 3.76%/yr for LBAY. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. KMLM charges 0.90%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for LBAY.

Performance

KMLM vs. LBAY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF (KMLM) 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, KMLM achieves a 10.60% return, which is significantly higher than LBAY's 6.11% return.

KMLM

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: -2.15%
• YTD: 10.60%
• 6M: 13.52%
• 1Y: 12.84%
• 3Y*: -0.53%
• 5Y*: 4.37%
• 10Y*: —

LBAY

• 1D: 1.10%
• 1M: -3.09%
• YTD: 6.11%
• 6M: 6.42%
• 1Y: 7.20%
• 3Y*: 3.29%
• 5Y*: 3.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

KMLM vs. LBAY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
KMLM KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF	10.60%	-2.98%	-1.69%	-5.66%	30.61%	7.04%	5.40%
LBAY Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF	6.11%	4.08%	-3.49%	-8.54%	22.41%	22.27%	3.13%

Correlation

The correlation between KMLM and LBAY is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2020	0.04

The correlation between KMLM and LBAY shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (5 years) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

KMLM vs. LBAY — Risk / Return Rank

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

KMLM

KMLM Risk / Return Rank: 36
KMLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
KMLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
KMLM Omega Ratio Rank: 31
KMLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
KMLM Martin Ratio Rank: 44

LBAY

LBAY Risk / Return Rank: 16
LBAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
LBAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
LBAY Omega Ratio Rank: 16
LBAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
LBAY Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

KMLM vs. LBAY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF (KMLM) 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.

	KMLM	LBAY	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	0.47	+0.66
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	0.82	+0.77
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.09	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	0.60	+1.61
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.31	1.55	+5.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

KMLM vs. LBAY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KMLM Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is higher than the LBAY Sharpe Ratio of 0.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KMLM 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

	KMLM	LBAY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	0.47	+0.66
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	0.28	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.49	0.58	-0.09

Drawdowns

KMLM vs. LBAY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KMLM drawdown since its inception was -27.47%, which is greater than LBAY's maximum drawdown of -15.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KMLM and LBAY.

Drawdown Indicators

	KMLM	LBAY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.47%	-15.99%	-11.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.30%	-11.91%	+5.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.28%	-14.57%	-7.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.47%	-15.99%	-11.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.76%	-10.94%	-2.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.74%	-6.80%	-5.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.91%	4.62%	-2.71%

Volatility

KMLM vs. LBAY - Volatility Comparison

KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF (KMLM) has a higher volatility of 4.49% compared to Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY) at 4.07%. This indicates that KMLM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LBAY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KMLM	LBAY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.49%	4.07%	+0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.64%	12.86%	-3.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.46%	15.25%	-3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.62%	13.60%	+1.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.74%	13.74%	+1.00%

KMLM vs. LBAY - Expense Ratio Comparison

KMLM has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is lower than LBAY's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

KMLM vs. LBAY - Dividend Comparison

KMLM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.54%, more than LBAY's 3.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
KMLM KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF	4.54%	5.02%	0.82%	0.00%	13.22%	6.94%	0.00%
LBAY Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF	3.81%	3.80%	3.77%	3.47%	2.74%	2.96%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KMLM and LBAY in my portfolio?

KMLM and LBAY have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KMLM or LBAY?

KMLM has higher volatility (4.49%) compared to LBAY (4.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KMLM dropped -27.47% vs LBAY's -15.99%.

Which ETF is better, KMLM or LBAY?

On 5-year performance, KMLM leads with 4.37% vs 3.76% for LBAY. On fees, KMLM is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, LBAY has been the lower-risk option at 4.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KMLM or LBAY?

Over the 5-year period, KMLM has performed better with a 4.37% return vs 3.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KMLM or LBAY?

KMLM is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for LBAY.

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

KMLM has the higher dividend yield at 4.54%, compared with 3.81% for LBAY.

What is the main difference between KMLM and LBAY?

They also come from different issuers: CICC and Toroso Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for KMLM and 1.09% for LBAY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KMLM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.13 vs 0.47), 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.