LIFT vs. LFAW

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LIFT (LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF) and LFAW (LifeX 2060 Longevity Income 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

LIFT vs. LFAW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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

LIFT

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

LFAW

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

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

LIFT vs. LFAW - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

The correlation between LIFT and LFAW 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

LIFT vs. LFAW — Risk / Return Rank

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

LIFT

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

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

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.

LIFT vs. LFAW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2028 Income Bucket ETF (LIFT) and LifeX 2060 Longevity Income ETF (LFAW). 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.

	LIFT	LFAW	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

LIFT vs. LFAW - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LIFT	LFAW	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	1.27%	7.52%	-6.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.27%	8.96%	-7.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.27%	8.96%	-7.69%

LIFT vs. LFAW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LIFT and LFAW 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

LIFT vs. LFAW - Dividend Comparison

LIFT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 31.03%, more than LFAW's 6.34% 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 LIFT and LFAW in my portfolio?

LIFT and LFAW 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, LIFT or LFAW?

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, LIFT or LFAW?

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

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

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