LFAW vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both Government Bonds funds. LFAW is actively managed, while BIL is passively managed. Over the past year, LFAW returned 5.06% vs 3.87% for BIL. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. LFAW charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

LFAW vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFAW achieves a -0.42% return, which is significantly lower than BIL's 1.49% return.

LFAW

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 0.59%
• YTD: -0.42%
• 6M: -1.58%
• 1Y: 5.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.49%
• 6M: 1.77%
• 1Y: 3.87%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.41%
• 10Y*: 2.18%

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

LFAW vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	-0.42%	6.00%	-9.41%
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	1.49%	4.15%	1.36%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAW and BIL is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	-0.13

Return for Risk

LFAW vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFAW

LFAW Risk / Return Rank: 20
LFAW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
LFAW Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
LFAW Omega Ratio Rank: 19
LFAW Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
LFAW Martin Ratio Rank: 20

BIL

BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

LFAW vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.

	LFAW	BIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.66	19.71	-19.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	174.16	-173.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	87.91	-86.79
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.80	355.35	-354.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.16	2,817.77	-2,815.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LFAW vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFAW Sharpe Ratio is 0.66, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFAW and BIL, 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

	LFAW	BIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66	19.71	-19.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	13.16	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	8.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.29	2.78	-3.07

Drawdowns

LFAW vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and BIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAW	BIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-0.78%	-10.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	-0.01%	-6.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.10%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.38%	0.00%	-4.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.45%	-0.26%	-5.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.35%	0.00%	+2.35%

Volatility

LFAW vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) has a higher volatility of 2.42% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.05%. This indicates that LFAW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFAW	BIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.42%	0.05%	+2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.34%	0.13%	+5.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.65%	0.20%	+7.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.99%	0.26%	+8.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.99%	0.26%	+8.73%

LFAW vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFAW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% 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

LFAW vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.46%, more than BIL's 3.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	3.86%	4.13%	5.03%	4.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.30%	2.05%	1.66%	0.68%	0.07%
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	6.46%	9.85%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAW and BIL in my portfolio?

LFAW and BIL have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFAW or BIL?

LFAW has higher volatility (2.42%) compared to BIL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAW dropped -11.37% vs BIL's -0.78%.

Which ETF is better, LFAW or BIL?

On 1-year performance, LFAW leads with 5.06% vs 3.87% for BIL. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFAW or BIL?

Over the 1-year period, LFAW has performed better with a 5.06% return vs 3.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFAW or BIL?

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LFAW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LFAW or BIL?

LFAW has the higher dividend yield at 6.46%, compared with 3.86% for BIL.

What is the main difference between LFAW and BIL?

They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAW and 0.14% for BIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.71 vs 0.66), 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.