LFAO vs. SCHQ
LFAO (LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF) and SCHQ (Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF) are both Government Bonds funds. LFAO is actively managed, while SCHQ is passively managed. Over the past year, LFAO returned -1.13% vs -1.68% for SCHQ. Their 0.98 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. LFAO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SCHQ.
Performance
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LFAO achieves a -2.61% return, which is significantly higher than SCHQ's -3.25% return.
LFAO
- 1D
- -0.60%
- 1M
- -2.77%
- 6M
- -2.59%
- YTD
- -2.61%
- 1Y
- -1.13%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -3.10%
SCHQ
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- -3.51%
- 6M
- -3.16%
- YTD
- -3.25%
- 1Y
- -1.68%
- 3Y*
- -0.63%
- 5Y*
- -7.05%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -4.18%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $25.23K | $13.84K | $16.25K | |
| $12.09M | $14.21M | $18.95M |
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
LFAO LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF | -2.61% | 5.65% | -8.36% |
SCHQ Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF | -3.25% | 5.50% | -10.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFAO and SCHQ is 0.99 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.99 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2024 | 0.98 |
The correlation between LFAO and SCHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LFAO vs. SCHQ — Risk / Return Rank
LFAO
SCHQ
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF (LFAO) and Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ). 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.
| LFAO | SCHQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.05 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.00 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.01 | -0.04 | +0.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.01 | -0.10 | +0.11 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LFAO drawdown since its inception was -10.12%, smaller than the maximum SCHQ drawdown of -46.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAO and SCHQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFAO | SCHQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -10.12% | -46.13% | +36.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.86% | -7.05% | +1.19% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.38% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -40.93% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.78% | -38.61% | +32.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.50% | -26.60% | +22.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.59% | 3.20% | -0.61% |
Volatility
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF (LFAO) is 1.78%, while Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ) has a volatility of 2.24%. This indicates that LFAO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFAO | SCHQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.78% | 2.24% | -0.46% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.23% | 6.30% | -1.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.83% | 8.50% | -1.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.98% | 14.41% | -6.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.98% | 15.20% | -7.22% |
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
LFAO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHQ's 0.03% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
LFAO vs. SCHQ - Dividend Comparison
LFAO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.20%, more than SCHQ's 4.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LFAO LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF | 11.20% | 14.33% | 1.64% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SCHQ Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF | 4.50% | 4.54% | 4.58% | 3.79% | 2.88% | 1.69% | 1.51% | 0.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.99, LFAO and SCHQ 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.
SCHQ has higher volatility (2.24%) compared to LFAO (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAO dropped -10.12% vs SCHQ's -46.13%.
On 1-year performance, LFAO leads with -1.13% vs -1.68% for SCHQ. On fees, SCHQ is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, LFAO has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LFAO has performed better with a -1.13% return vs -1.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHQ is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LFAO.
LFAO has the higher dividend yield at 11.20%, compared with 4.50% for SCHQ.
They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAO and 0.03% for SCHQ.
LFAO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.00 vs -0.04), 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.
Find the right allocation for LFAO and SCHQ
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer