LQTI vs. FFEB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) and FFEB (FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February) are both exchange-traded funds - LQTI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by FT Vest, while FFEB is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by FT Vest. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LQTI returned 5.69% vs 19.32% for FFEB. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQTI charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for FFEB.

Performance

LQTI vs. FFEB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQTI achieves a 0.16% return, which is significantly lower than FFEB's 7.65% return.

LQTI

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 0.16%
• 6M: -0.04%
• 1Y: 5.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FFEB

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 6M: 8.55%
• 1Y: 19.32%
• 3Y*: 16.35%
• 5Y*: 11.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

LQTI vs. FFEB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	0.16%	6.69%
FFEB FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February	7.65%	11.37%

Correlation

The correlation between LQTI and FFEB is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	0.32

Return for Risk

LQTI vs. FFEB — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQTI

LQTI Risk / Return Rank: 32
LQTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
LQTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
LQTI Omega Ratio Rank: 29
LQTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
LQTI Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FFEB

FFEB Risk / Return Rank: 82
FFEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FFEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FFEB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FFEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FFEB Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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. FFEB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB). 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.

	LQTI	FFEB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	2.73	-1.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	3.94	-2.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.55	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	3.39	-1.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.15	18.01	-12.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LQTI vs. FFEB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQTI Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is lower than the FFEB Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQTI and FFEB, 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

	LQTI	FFEB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.12	2.73	-1.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.03	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.88	0.87	+0.02

Drawdowns

LQTI vs. FFEB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQTI drawdown since its inception was -3.41%, smaller than the maximum FFEB drawdown of -22.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQTI and FFEB.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQTI	FFEB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.41%	-22.81%	+19.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.41%	-5.73%	+2.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.89%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.44%	-0.30%	-1.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.88%	-2.40%	+1.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.11%	1.08%	+0.03%

Volatility

LQTI vs. FFEB - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) has a higher volatility of 1.65% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February (FFEB) at 1.24%. This indicates that LQTI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FFEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LQTI	FFEB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.65%	1.24%	+0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.02%	5.56%	-1.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.10%	7.12%	-2.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.97%	10.81%	-4.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.97%	13.75%	-7.78%

LQTI vs. FFEB - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQTI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than FFEB's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

LQTI vs. FFEB - Dividend Comparison

LQTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.11%, while FFEB has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
FFEB FT Vest U.S. Equity Buffer ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF	9.11%	7.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQTI and FFEB in my portfolio?

LQTI and FFEB have a correlation of 0.33, 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 FFEB?

LQTI has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to FFEB (1.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQTI dropped -3.41% vs FFEB's -22.81%.

Which ETF is better, LQTI or FFEB?

On 1-year performance, FFEB leads with 19.32% vs 5.69% for LQTI. On fees, LQTI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, FFEB has been the lower-risk option at 1.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQTI or FFEB?

Over the 1-year period, FFEB has performed better with a 19.32% return vs 5.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQTI or FFEB?

LQTI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for FFEB.

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

LQTI has the higher dividend yield at 9.11%, compared with 0.00% for FFEB.

What is the main difference between LQTI and FFEB?

LQTI is categorized as Derivative Income, while FFEB is Defined Outcome. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LQTI and 0.85% for FFEB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFEB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 1.12), 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.