LFDR vs. IBTF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LFDR (LifeX Durable Income ETF) and IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) are both Government Bonds funds. LFDR is actively managed, while IBTF is passively managed. Over the past year, LFDR returned 3.26% vs 2.10% for IBTF. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. LFDR charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTF.

Performance

LFDR vs. IBTF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

LFDR

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 0.39%
• YTD: -0.19%
• 6M: -1.04%
• 1Y: 3.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBTF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.09%
• 1Y: 2.10%
• 3Y*: 3.66%
• 5Y*: 0.90%
• 10Y*: —

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

LFDR vs. IBTF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	-0.19%	4.82%	-1.64%
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	0.00%	3.81%	0.27%

Correlation

The correlation between LFDR and IBTF is -0.02, 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	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 17, 2024	-0.02

Return for Risk

LFDR vs. IBTF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFDR

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

IBTF

IBTF Risk / Return Rank: 99
IBTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Omega Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

LFDR vs. IBTF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) 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.

	LFDR	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.40	6.96	-6.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.63	19.67	-19.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	6.12	-5.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.49	58.19	-57.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.27	264.16	-262.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LFDR vs. IBTF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFDR Sharpe Ratio is 0.40, which is lower than the IBTF Sharpe Ratio of 6.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFDR and IBTF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LFDR	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40	6.96	-6.57
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.21	0.44	-0.24

Drawdowns

LFDR vs. IBTF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFDR drawdown since its inception was -7.77%, smaller than the maximum IBTF drawdown of -10.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFDR and IBTF.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFDR	IBTF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.77%	-10.45%	+2.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.75%	-0.04%	-6.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.67%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.93%	0.00%	-3.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.95%	-3.32%	+0.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	0.01%	+2.57%

Volatility

LFDR vs. IBTF - Volatility Comparison

LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) has a higher volatility of 2.53% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) at 0.00%. This indicates that LFDR'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.

Volatility by Period

	LFDR	IBTF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.53%	0.00%	+2.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.72%	0.18%	+5.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.37%	0.36%	+8.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.60%	2.38%	+7.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.60%	2.56%	+7.04%

LFDR vs. IBTF - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFDR 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

LFDR vs. IBTF - Dividend Comparison

LFDR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.25%, 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%
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	8.25%	13.10%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFDR and IBTF in my portfolio?

LFDR and IBTF have a correlation of -0.02, 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 IBTF?

LFDR has higher volatility (2.53%) compared to IBTF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFDR dropped -7.77% vs IBTF's -10.45%.

Which ETF is better, LFDR or IBTF?

On 1-year performance, LFDR leads with 3.26% vs 2.10% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, LFDR or IBTF?

Over the 1-year period, LFDR has performed better with a 3.26% return vs 2.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFDR or IBTF?

IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LFDR.

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

LFDR has the higher dividend yield at 8.25%, compared with 2.08% for IBTF.

What is the main difference between LFDR and IBTF?

They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFDR and 0.07% for IBTF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBTF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.96 vs 0.40), 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.