LFAW vs. BNDD

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and BNDD (Quadratic Deflation ETF) are both Government Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LFAW returned 3.92% vs 2.37% for BNDD. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LFAW charges 0.25%/yr vs 1.02%/yr for BNDD.

Performance

LFAW vs. BNDD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and Quadratic Deflation ETF (BNDD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFAW achieves a -0.24% return, which is significantly lower than BNDD's 4.38% return.

LFAW

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 0.33%
• YTD: -0.24%
• 6M: -0.95%
• 1Y: 3.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNDD

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 4.38%
• 6M: 2.33%
• 1Y: 2.37%
• 3Y*: -3.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFAW vs. BNDD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	-0.24%	6.00%	-9.41%
BNDD Quadratic Deflation ETF	4.38%	-8.17%	-8.32%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAW and BNDD is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.67

The correlation between LFAW and BNDD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFAW vs. BNDD — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFAW

LFAW Risk / Return Rank: 17
LFAW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
LFAW Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
LFAW Omega Ratio Rank: 16
LFAW Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
LFAW Martin Ratio Rank: 17

BNDD

BNDD Risk / Return Rank: 13
BNDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
BNDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
BNDD Omega Ratio Rank: 12
BNDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
BNDD Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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. BNDD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and Quadratic Deflation ETF (BNDD). 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	BNDD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.52	0.23	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.80	0.39	+0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.05	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.62	0.39	+0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.67	0.84	+0.83
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. BNDD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFAW Sharpe Ratio is 0.52, which is higher than the BNDD Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFAW and BNDD, 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	BNDD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.52	0.23	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.28	-0.33	+0.05

Drawdowns

LFAW vs. BNDD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, smaller than the maximum BNDD drawdown of -30.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and BNDD.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAW	BNDD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-30.87%	+19.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	-6.09%	-0.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.21%	-26.46%	+22.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.44%	-19.34%	+13.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.36%	2.83%	-0.47%

Volatility

LFAW vs. BNDD - Volatility Comparison

LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) has a higher volatility of 2.39% compared to Quadratic Deflation ETF (BNDD) at 2.17%. This indicates that LFAW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BNDD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFAW	BNDD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.39%	2.17%	+0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.34%	8.07%	-2.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.65%	10.59%	-2.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.98%	13.37%	-4.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.98%	13.37%	-4.39%

LFAW vs. BNDD - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFAW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BNDD's 1.02% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFAW vs. BNDD - Dividend Comparison

LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.45%, more than BNDD's 3.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BNDD Quadratic Deflation ETF	3.60%	3.82%	3.85%	4.30%	43.17%	1.04%
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	6.45%	9.85%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAW and BNDD in my portfolio?

LFAW and BNDD have a correlation of 0.59, 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 BNDD?

LFAW has higher volatility (2.39%) compared to BNDD (2.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAW dropped -11.37% vs BNDD's -30.87%.

Which ETF is better, LFAW or BNDD?

On 1-year performance, LFAW leads with 3.92% vs 2.37% for BNDD. On fees, LFAW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BNDD has been the lower-risk option at 2.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFAW or BNDD?

Over the 1-year period, LFAW has performed better with a 3.92% return vs 2.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFAW or BNDD?

LFAW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for BNDD.

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

LFAW has the higher dividend yield at 6.45%, compared with 3.60% for BNDD.

What is the main difference between LFAW and BNDD?

They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAW and 1.02% for BNDD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFAW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.52 vs 0.23), 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.