LQTI vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LQTI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by FT Vest, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. LQTI is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past year, LQTI returned 4.91% vs 21.34% for CMDT. At a correlation of -0.18, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

LQTI vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) 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, LQTI achieves a 0.47% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.

LQTI

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 0.47%
• 6M: 1.08%
• 1Y: 4.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMDT

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: -8.86%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 13.42%
• 1Y: 21.34%
• 3Y*: 12.77%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LQTI vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	0.47%	6.59%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	13.43%	6.97%

Correlation

The correlation between LQTI and CMDT is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	-0.18

Return for Risk

LQTI vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 29
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 25
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 32

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 50
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

LQTI vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	LQTI	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.71	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.41	2.39	-0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.29	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.45	1.93	-0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.30	9.62	-5.32

LQTI vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQTI Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQTI 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

LQTI vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQTI drawdown since its inception was -3.41%, smaller than the maximum CMDT drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQTI and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQTI	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.41%	-11.11%	+7.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.41%	-11.11%	+7.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.13%	-11.11%	+9.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-2.77%	+1.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.15%	2.25%	-1.10%

Volatility

LQTI vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) is 1.54%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 3.26%. This indicates that LQTI 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

	LQTI	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.54%	3.26%	-1.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.13%	10.60%	-6.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.11%	12.65%	-7.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.94%	12.24%	-6.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.94%	12.24%	-6.30%

LQTI vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LQTI and CMDT have an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Dividends

LQTI vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

LQTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.08%, more than CMDT's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.67%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.08%	7.01%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQTI and CMDT in my portfolio?

LQTI and CMDT have a correlation of -0.21, 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 CMDT?

CMDT has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to LQTI (1.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQTI dropped -3.41% vs CMDT's -11.11%.

Which ETF is better, LQTI or CMDT?

On 1-year performance, CMDT leads with 21.34% vs 4.91% for LQTI. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. On volatility, LQTI has been the lower-risk option at 1.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQTI or CMDT?

Over the 1-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 21.34% return vs 4.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQTI or CMDT?

LQTI and CMDT have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

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

LQTI has the higher dividend yield at 9.08%, compared with 2.67% for CMDT.

What is the main difference between LQTI and CMDT?

LQTI is categorized as Derivative Income, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and PIMCO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 0.97), 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.