LFAW vs. LIFT

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and LIFT (LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF) are both Government Bonds funds from Stone Ridge. Both are actively managed. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.

Performance

LFAW vs. LIFT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF (LIFT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFAW achieves a 1.42% return, which is significantly higher than LIFT's 0.79% return.

LFAW

• 1D: 1.06%
• 1M: 2.85%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 0.82%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LIFT

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.03%
• YTD: 0.79%
• 6M: 0.88%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFAW vs. LIFT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	1.42%	0.27%
LIFT LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF	0.79%	1.16%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAW and LIFT is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025	0.50

Return for Risk

LFAW vs. LIFT — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFAW

LFAW Risk / Return Rank: 18
LFAW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
LFAW Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
LFAW Omega Ratio Rank: 17
LFAW Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
LFAW Martin Ratio Rank: 18

LIFT

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. LIFT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF (LIFT). 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	LIFT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.96	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.74	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.88	—	—

Drawdowns

LFAW vs. LIFT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, which is greater than LIFT's maximum drawdown of -0.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and LIFT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAW	LIFT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-0.49%	-10.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.61%	-0.04%	-2.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.39%	-0.09%	-5.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.49%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LFAW	LIFT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.03%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.53%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.52%	1.27%	+6.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.96%	1.27%	+7.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.96%	1.27%	+7.69%

LFAW vs. LIFT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LFAW and LIFT 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. LIFT - Dividend Comparison

LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.34%, less than LIFT's 31.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	6.34%	9.85%	1.47%
LIFT LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF	31.03%	8.63%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAW and LIFT in my portfolio?

LFAW and LIFT have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LFAW or LIFT?

Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFAW or LIFT?

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

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

LIFT has the higher dividend yield at 31.03%, compared with 6.34% for LFAW.