LBAY vs. FFLS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

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

Performance

LBAY vs. FFLS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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

LBAY

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

FFLS

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

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

LBAY vs. FFLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

The correlation between LBAY and FFLS 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

LBAY vs. FFLS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

LBAY vs. FFLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

LBAY vs. FFLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	LBAY	FFLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.60	-0.05	+0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.00	-0.01	+1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.00	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.77	-0.04	+0.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.94	-0.09	+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.

LBAY vs. FFLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

	LBAY	FFLS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60	-0.05	+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	0.59	0.82	-0.23

Drawdowns

LBAY vs. FFLS - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

LBAY vs. FFLS - Volatility Comparison

Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY) has a higher volatility of 3.80% compared to The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) at 3.51%. This indicates that LBAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FFLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

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

LBAY vs. FFLS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LBAY vs. FFLS - Dividend Comparison

LBAY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.79%, less than FFLS's 6.55% 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 LBAY and FFLS in my portfolio?

LBAY and FFLS 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, LBAY or FFLS?

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

Which ETF is better, LBAY or FFLS?

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, LBAY or FFLS?

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, LBAY or FFLS?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between LBAY and FFLS?

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

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.