LFAW vs. SCHQ

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF) and SCHQ (Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF) are both Government Bonds funds. LFAW is actively managed, while SCHQ is passively managed. Over the past year, LFAW returned 4.36% vs 4.37% for SCHQ. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. LFAW charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SCHQ.

Performance

LFAW vs. SCHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ). 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 SCHQ's 0.37% return.

LFAW

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

SCHQ

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 0.37%
• 6M: 0.37%
• 1Y: 4.37%
• 3Y*: -0.77%
• 5Y*: -5.56%
• 10Y*: —

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

LFAW vs. SCHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	0.21%	6.00%	-9.41%
SCHQ Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF	0.37%	5.50%	-10.63%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAW and SCHQ is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2024	0.98

The correlation between LFAW and SCHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFAW vs. SCHQ — 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

SCHQ

SCHQ Risk / Return Rank: 15
SCHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
SCHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
SCHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 14
SCHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
SCHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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. SCHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) and Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ). 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	SCHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	0.51	+0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	0.79	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.09	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	0.63	+0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.77	1.55	+0.22

LFAW vs. SCHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFAW Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is comparable to the SCHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFAW and SCHQ, 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. SCHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAW drawdown since its inception was -11.37%, smaller than the maximum SCHQ drawdown of -46.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAW and SCHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAW	SCHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-46.13%	+34.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.34%	-7.01%	+0.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.65%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-40.93%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.78%	-36.31%	+32.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-26.42%	+21.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	2.83%	-0.36%

Volatility

LFAW vs. SCHQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW) is 1.82%, while Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ) has a volatility of 2.09%. This indicates that LFAW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFAW	SCHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	2.09%	-0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.46%	6.08%	-0.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.47%	8.66%	-1.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.94%	14.49%	-5.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.94%	15.29%	-6.35%

LFAW vs. SCHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFAW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHQ's 0.03% 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. SCHQ - Dividend Comparison

LFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.42%, more than SCHQ's 4.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
LFAW LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF	6.42%	9.85%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SCHQ Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF	4.75%	4.54%	4.58%	3.79%	2.88%	1.69%	1.51%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAW and SCHQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, LFAW and SCHQ 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 SCHQ?

SCHQ has higher volatility (2.09%) compared to LFAW (1.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAW dropped -11.37% vs SCHQ's -46.13%.

Which ETF is better, LFAW or SCHQ?

On 1-year performance, SCHQ leads with 4.37% vs 4.36% for LFAW. On fees, SCHQ is cheaper at 0.03% 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 SCHQ?

Over the 1-year period, SCHQ has performed better with a 4.37% 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 SCHQ?

SCHQ is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LFAW.

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

LFAW has the higher dividend yield at 6.42%, compared with 4.75% for SCHQ.

What is the main difference between LFAW and SCHQ?

They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAW and 0.03% for SCHQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFAW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.59 vs 0.51), 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.