LFDR vs. CMDT

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

LFDR (LifeX Durable Income ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LFDR is a Government Bonds fund actively managed by Stone Ridge, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. LFDR is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past year, LFDR returned -1.91% vs 28.43% for CMDT. Their -0.23 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. LFDR charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

LFDR vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFDR achieves a -3.22% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 19.39% return.

LFDR

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: -3.47%
• 6M: -3.17%
• YTD: -3.22%
• 1Y: -1.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -0.13%

CMDT

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 6.84%
• 6M: 12.84%
• YTD: 19.39%
• 1Y: 28.43%
• 3Y*: 11.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.80%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	$1.88M	$1.77M	$2.38M
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	$1.83K	$1.96K	$2.51K

LFDR vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	-3.22%	4.82%	-1.64%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	19.39%	12.78%	-0.07%

Correlation

The correlation between LFDR and CMDT is -0.31, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2024	-0.23

Return for Risk

LFDR vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LFDR

LFDR Risk / Return Rank: 9
LFDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
LFDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LFDR Omega Ratio Rank: 9
LFDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
LFDR Martin Ratio Rank: 9

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 77
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 63

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LFDR vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.

	LFDR	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.08	2.16	-2.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.06	2.95	-3.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.37	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.10	2.13	-2.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	7.56	-7.77

LFDR vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFDR Sharpe Ratio is -0.08, which is lower than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFDR and CMDT, 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

LFDR vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFDR drawdown since its inception was -7.77%, smaller than the maximum CMDT drawdown of -13.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFDR and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFDR	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.77%	-13.23%	+5.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.84%	-13.23%	+6.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.84%	-6.44%	-0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.07%	-2.97%	-0.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	3.73%	-0.67%

Volatility

LFDR vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) is 2.14%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 3.97%. This indicates that LFDR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFDR	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.14%	3.97%	-1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.06%	11.25%	-5.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.09%	13.09%	-5.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.47%	12.36%	-2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.47%	12.36%	-2.89%

LFDR vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFDR has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFDR vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

LFDR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.50%, more than CMDT's 2.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.58%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	8.50%	13.10%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFDR and CMDT in my portfolio?

LFDR and CMDT have a correlation of -0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFDR or CMDT?

CMDT has higher volatility (3.97%) compared to LFDR (2.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFDR dropped -7.77% vs CMDT's -13.23%.

Which ETF is better, LFDR or CMDT?

On 1-year performance, CMDT leads with 28.43% vs -1.91% for LFDR. On fees, LFDR is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LFDR has been the lower-risk option at 2.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFDR or CMDT?

Over the 1-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 28.43% return vs -1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFDR or CMDT?

LFDR is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LFDR or CMDT?

LFDR has the higher dividend yield at 8.50%, compared with 2.58% for CMDT.

What is the main difference between LFDR and CMDT?

LFDR is categorized as Government Bonds, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFDR and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs -0.08), 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.