LFAW vs. FTGC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and FTGC (First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LFAW is a Government Bonds fund actively managed by Stone Ridge, while FTGC is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LFAW returned 4.36% vs 26.86% for FTGC. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. LFAW charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FTGC.

Performance

LFAW vs. FTGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFAW achieves a 0.21% return, which is significantly lower than FTGC's 20.23% return.

LFAW

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 0.21%
• 6M: 0.18%
• 1Y: 4.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FTGC

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: -6.30%
• YTD: 20.23%
• 6M: 20.44%
• 1Y: 26.86%
• 3Y*: 14.70%
• 5Y*: 12.56%
• 10Y*: 7.28%

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

LFAW vs. FTGC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	0.21%	6.00%	-9.41%
FTGC First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund	20.23%	14.61%	6.09%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAW and FTGC is -0.25, 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	-0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2024	-0.15

The correlation between LFAW and FTGC shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to -0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LFAW vs. FTGC — 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

FTGC

FTGC Risk / Return Rank: 53
FTGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
FTGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
FTGC Omega Ratio Rank: 50
FTGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
FTGC Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. FTGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC). 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.

	LFAW	FTGC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	1.72	-1.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	2.33	-1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.31	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	2.74	-2.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.77	9.43	-7.66

LFAW vs. FTGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFAW Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the FTGC Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFAW and FTGC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LFAW vs. FTGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, smaller than the maximum FTGC drawdown of -59.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and FTGC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAW	FTGC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-59.47%	+48.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	-9.84%	+3.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.64%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.78%	-9.84%	+6.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-27.34%	+21.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	2.98%	-0.51%

Volatility

LFAW vs. FTGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) is 1.82%, while First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC) has a volatility of 2.99%. This indicates that LFAW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFAW	FTGC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	2.99%	-1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.46%	13.17%	-7.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.47%	15.69%	-8.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.94%	15.86%	-6.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.94%	14.71%	-5.77%

LFAW vs. FTGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFAW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than FTGC's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFAW vs. FTGC - Dividend Comparison

LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.42%, less than FTGC's 15.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FTGC First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund	15.95%	17.74%	3.05%	3.34%	10.35%	7.21%	0.00%	0.81%	0.80%	1.21%
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	6.42%	9.85%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAW and FTGC in my portfolio?

LFAW and FTGC have a correlation of -0.25, 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 FTGC?

FTGC has higher volatility (2.99%) compared to LFAW (1.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAW dropped -11.37% vs FTGC's -59.47%.

Which ETF is better, LFAW or FTGC?

On 1-year performance, FTGC leads with 26.86% vs 4.36% for LFAW. On fees, LFAW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LFAW has been the lower-risk option at 1.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFAW or FTGC?

Over the 1-year period, FTGC has performed better with a 26.86% return vs 4.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFAW or FTGC?

LFAW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FTGC.

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

FTGC has the higher dividend yield at 15.95%, compared with 6.42% for LFAW.

What is the main difference between LFAW and FTGC?

LFAW is categorized as Government Bonds, while FTGC is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAW and 0.95% for FTGC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 0.59), 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.