LFAW vs. LIBD

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and LIBD (LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LFAW is a Government Bonds fund actively managed by Stone Ridge, while LIBD is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund actively managed by Stone Ridge. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LFAW returned 4.36% vs 2.32% for LIBD. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.

Performance

LFAW vs. LIBD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIBD). 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 LIBD's 0.49% return.

LFAW

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

LIBD

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: 1.00%
• YTD: 0.49%
• 6M: 0.63%
• 1Y: 2.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFAW vs. LIBD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	0.21%	6.22%
LIBD LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF	0.49%	-0.63%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAW and LIBD is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 6, 2025	0.92

The correlation between LFAW and LIBD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFAW vs. LIBD — 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

LIBD

LIBD Risk / Return Rank: 12
LIBD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LIBD Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
LIBD Omega Ratio Rank: 11
LIBD Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
LIBD Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. LIBD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIBD). 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	LIBD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	0.29	+0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	0.47	+0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.05	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	0.38	+0.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.77	0.78	+0.99

LFAW vs. LIBD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFAW Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is higher than the LIBD Sharpe Ratio of 0.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFAW and LIBD, 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. LIBD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, which is greater than LIBD's maximum drawdown of -7.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and LIBD.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAW	LIBD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-7.31%	-4.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	-6.19%	-0.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.78%	-3.69%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-3.35%	-2.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	2.99%	-0.52%

Volatility

LFAW vs. LIBD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) is 1.82%, while LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIBD) has a volatility of 2.03%. This indicates that LFAW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LIBD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFAW	LIBD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	2.03%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.46%	5.79%	-0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.47%	7.93%	-0.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.94%	10.10%	-1.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.94%	10.10%	-1.16%

LFAW vs. LIBD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LFAW and LIBD have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

LFAW vs. LIBD - Dividend Comparison

LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.42%, less than LIBD's 11.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	6.42%	9.85%	1.47%
LIBD LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF	11.50%	13.52%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAW and LIBD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, LFAW and LIBD 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.

Which is riskier, LFAW or LIBD?

LIBD has higher volatility (2.03%) compared to LFAW (1.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAW dropped -11.37% vs LIBD's -7.31%.

Which ETF is better, LFAW or LIBD?

On 1-year performance, LFAW leads with 4.36% vs 2.32% for LIBD. Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. 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 LIBD?

Over the 1-year period, LFAW has performed better with a 4.36% return vs 2.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFAW or LIBD?

LFAW and LIBD have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.

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

LIBD has the higher dividend yield at 11.50%, compared with 6.42% for LFAW.

What is the main difference between LFAW and LIBD?

LFAW is categorized as Government Bonds, while LIBD is Inflation-Protected Bonds.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFAW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.59 vs 0.29), 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.