LIAE vs. WIP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LIAE (LifeX 2050 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF) and WIP (SPDR FTSE International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF) are both Inflation-Protected Bonds funds. LIAE is actively managed, while WIP is passively managed. Over the past year, LIAE returned 4.97% vs 10.26% for WIP. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LIAE charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for WIP.

Performance

LIAE vs. WIP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2050 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIAE) and SPDR FTSE International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF (WIP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LIAE achieves a 0.84% return, which is significantly lower than WIP's 4.31% return.

LIAE

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 0.84%
• 6M: 0.10%
• 1Y: 4.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WIP

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 4.31%
• 6M: 4.96%
• 1Y: 10.26%
• 3Y*: 5.08%
• 5Y*: -0.70%
• 10Y*: 1.61%

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

LIAE vs. WIP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LIAE LifeX 2050 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF	0.84%	6.08%	-6.04%
WIP SPDR FTSE International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF	4.31%	15.18%	-8.24%

Correlation

The correlation between LIAE and WIP is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.39

Return for Risk

LIAE vs. WIP — Risk / Return Rank

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

LIAE

LIAE Risk / Return Rank: 26
LIAE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
LIAE Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
LIAE Omega Ratio Rank: 24
LIAE Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
LIAE Martin Ratio Rank: 26

WIP

WIP Risk / Return Rank: 34
WIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
WIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
WIP Omega Ratio Rank: 29
WIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
WIP Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

LIAE vs. WIP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2050 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIAE) and SPDR FTSE International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF (WIP). 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.

	LIAE	WIP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	1.18	-0.28
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.33	1.67	-0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.20	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.36	2.00	-0.64
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.43	5.98	-2.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LIAE vs. WIP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIAE Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is comparable to the WIP Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIAE and WIP, 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

	LIAE	WIP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90	1.18	-0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.16	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	0.12	-0.08

Drawdowns

LIAE vs. WIP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIAE drawdown since its inception was -7.03%, smaller than the maximum WIP drawdown of -29.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIAE and WIP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIAE	WIP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.03%	-29.60%	+22.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.68%	-5.16%	+1.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.16%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.84%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.41%	-3.87%	+2.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.52%	-8.58%	+6.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.45%	1.72%	-0.27%

Volatility

LIAE vs. WIP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX 2050 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIAE) is 1.46%, while SPDR FTSE International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF (WIP) has a volatility of 2.95%. This indicates that LIAE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WIP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIAE	WIP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.46%	2.95%	-1.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.86%	6.89%	-3.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.55%	8.72%	-3.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.58%	11.45%	-4.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.58%	10.16%	-3.58%

LIAE vs. WIP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LIAE has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than WIP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LIAE vs. WIP - Dividend Comparison

LIAE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.72%, more than WIP's 5.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LIAE LifeX 2050 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF	9.72%	10.56%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WIP SPDR FTSE International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF	5.79%	5.51%	6.06%	6.54%	11.15%	4.63%	1.59%	2.49%	4.05%	1.91%	1.27%	1.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LIAE and WIP in my portfolio?

LIAE and WIP have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LIAE or WIP?

WIP has higher volatility (2.95%) compared to LIAE (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIAE dropped -7.03% vs WIP's -29.60%.

Which ETF is better, LIAE or WIP?

On 1-year performance, WIP leads with 10.26% vs 4.97% for LIAE. On fees, LIAE is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LIAE has been the lower-risk option at 1.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIAE or WIP?

Over the 1-year period, WIP has performed better with a 10.26% return vs 4.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIAE or WIP?

LIAE is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for WIP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LIAE or WIP?

LIAE has the higher dividend yield at 9.72%, compared with 5.79% for WIP.

What is the main difference between LIAE and WIP?

They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LIAE and 0.50% for WIP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WIP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.18 vs 0.90), 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.