LFAW vs. IBTF
LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) are both Government Bonds funds. LFAW is actively managed, while IBTF is passively managed. Over the past year, LFAW returned 4.36% vs 1.92% for IBTF. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFAW charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTF.
Performance
LFAW vs. IBTF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
LFAW
- 1D
- -0.56%
- 1M
- 1.62%
- YTD
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- 1Y
- 4.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBTF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 1.92%
- 3Y*
- 3.74%
- 5Y*
- 0.96%
- 10Y*
- —
LFAW vs. IBTF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF | 0.21% | 6.00% | -9.41% |
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFAW and IBTF is -0.04, 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 | -0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2024 | 0.02 |
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
LFAW vs. IBTF — Risk / Return Rank
LFAW
IBTF
LFAW vs. IBTF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). 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 | IBTF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -6.16 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -18.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.10 | 6.26 | -5.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.69 | 53.32 | -52.63 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.77 | 269.65 | -267.88 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LFAW vs. IBTF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, which is greater than IBTF's maximum drawdown of -10.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and IBTF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFAW | IBTF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.37% | -10.45% | -0.92% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.34% | -0.04% | -6.30% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -0.46% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -9.53% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.78% | 0.00% | -3.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.40% | -3.30% | -2.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.47% | 0.01% | +2.46% |
Volatility
LFAW vs. IBTF - Volatility Comparison
LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) has a higher volatility of 1.82% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) at 0.00%. This indicates that LFAW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFAW | IBTF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.82% | 0.00% | +1.82% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.46% | 0.15% | +5.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.47% | 0.34% | +7.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.94% | 2.37% | +6.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.94% | 2.55% | +6.39% |
LFAW vs. IBTF - Expense Ratio Comparison
LFAW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTF's 0.07% 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. IBTF - Dividend Comparison
LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.42%, more than IBTF's 2.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF | 2.08% | 3.83% | 4.32% | 4.03% | 1.93% | 0.57% | 0.59% |
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF | 6.42% | 9.85% | 1.47% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LFAW and IBTF have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LFAW has higher volatility (1.82%) compared to IBTF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAW dropped -11.37% vs IBTF's -10.45%.
On 1-year performance, LFAW leads with 4.36% vs 1.92% for IBTF. On fees, IBTF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTF has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LFAW has performed better with a 4.36% return vs 1.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LFAW.
LFAW has the higher dividend yield at 6.42%, compared with 2.08% for IBTF.
They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAW and 0.07% for IBTF.
IBTF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.75 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.
Find the right allocation for LFAW and IBTF
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