LQTI vs. AEMS

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) and AEMS (Anfield Enhanced Market ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LQTI returned 2.09% vs 27.15% for AEMS. Their 0.36 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LQTI charges 0.65%/yr vs 1.21%/yr for AEMS.

Performance

LQTI vs. AEMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and Anfield Enhanced Market ETF (AEMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQTI achieves a -0.64% return, which is significantly lower than AEMS's 14.93% return.

LQTI

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: -1.29%
• 6M: -0.79%
• YTD: -0.64%
• 1Y: 2.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.98%

AEMS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -8.91%
• 6M: 12.00%
• YTD: 14.93%
• 1Y: 27.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 25.85%

*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)
AEMS Anfield Enhanced Market ETF	$0.00	$50.71K	$2.91M
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	$2.10M	$2.20M	$1.68M

LQTI vs. AEMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	-0.64%	3.42%
AEMS Anfield Enhanced Market ETF	14.93%	11.86%

Correlation

The correlation between LQTI and AEMS is 0.37, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025	0.36

Return for Risk

LQTI vs. AEMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 18
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 16
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 21

AEMS

AEMS Risk / Return Rank: 53
AEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
AEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
AEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 56
AEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
AEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

LQTI vs. AEMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and Anfield Enhanced Market ETF (AEMS). 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.

	LQTI	AEMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.40	1.35	-0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.60	1.93	-1.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.28	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.62	2.40	-1.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.54	7.50	-5.96

LQTI vs. AEMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQTI Sharpe Ratio is 0.40, which is lower than the AEMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQTI and AEMS, 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

LQTI vs. AEMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQTI drawdown since its inception was -3.41%, smaller than the maximum AEMS drawdown of -11.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQTI and AEMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQTI	AEMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.41%	-11.37%	+7.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.41%	-11.37%	+7.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.23%	-8.91%	+6.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.99%	-2.08%	+1.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.36%	3.63%	-2.27%

Volatility

LQTI vs. AEMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) is 1.67%, while Anfield Enhanced Market ETF (AEMS) has a volatility of 2.27%. This indicates that LQTI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AEMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LQTI	AEMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.67%	2.27%	-0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.20%	17.56%	-13.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.19%	20.25%	-15.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.92%	19.53%	-13.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.92%	19.53%	-13.61%

LQTI vs. AEMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQTI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than AEMS's 1.21% expense ratio.

Dividends

LQTI vs. AEMS - Dividend Comparison

LQTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.27%, less than AEMS's 447.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
AEMS Anfield Enhanced Market ETF	447.11%	7.53%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.27%	7.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQTI and AEMS in my portfolio?

LQTI and AEMS have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LQTI or AEMS?

AEMS has higher volatility (2.27%) compared to LQTI (1.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQTI dropped -3.41% vs AEMS's -11.37%.

Which ETF is better, LQTI or AEMS?

On 1-year performance, AEMS leads with 27.15% vs 2.09% for LQTI. On fees, LQTI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, LQTI has been the lower-risk option at 1.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQTI or AEMS?

Over the 1-year period, AEMS has performed better with a 27.15% return vs 2.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQTI or AEMS?

LQTI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.21% for AEMS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LQTI or AEMS?

AEMS has the higher dividend yield at 447.11%, compared with 9.27% for LQTI.

What is the main difference between LQTI and AEMS?

They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Anfield. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LQTI and 1.21% for AEMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AEMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 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.