LQTI vs. XRMI
LQTI (FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF) and XRMI (Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. LQTI is actively managed, while XRMI is passively managed. Over the past year, LQTI returned 5.55% vs 9.53% for XRMI. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQTI charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XRMI.
Performance
LQTI vs. XRMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQTI achieves a 0.63% return, which is significantly lower than XRMI's 1.78% return.
LQTI
- 1D
- 0.47%
- 1M
- 0.49%
- YTD
- 0.63%
- 6M
- 0.68%
- 1Y
- 5.55%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XRMI
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- 1.14%
- YTD
- 1.78%
- 6M
- 2.56%
- 1Y
- 9.53%
- 3Y*
- 6.74%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LQTI vs. XRMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF | 0.63% | 6.69% |
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF | 1.78% | 2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQTI and XRMI is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025 | 0.25 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LQTI vs. XRMI — Risk / Return Rank
LQTI
XRMI
LQTI vs. XRMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) and Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI). 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 | XRMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.35 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.64 | 1.91 | -0.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.02 | 7.73 | -2.71 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LQTI | XRMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 1.79 | -0.69 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.94 | 0.37 | +0.57 |
Drawdowns
LQTI vs. XRMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQTI drawdown since its inception was -3.41%, smaller than the maximum XRMI drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQTI and XRMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQTI | XRMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.41% | -15.31% | +11.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.41% | -5.02% | +1.61% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -8.34% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.97% | -0.17% | -0.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.88% | -5.93% | +5.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.11% | 1.23% | -0.12% |
Volatility
LQTI vs. XRMI - Volatility Comparison
FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF (LQTI) has a higher volatility of 1.67% compared to Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI) at 0.86%. This indicates that LQTI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XRMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQTI | XRMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.67% | 0.86% | +0.81% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.04% | 4.21% | -0.17% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.12% | 5.36% | -0.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.97% | 6.90% | -0.93% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.97% | 6.90% | -0.93% |
LQTI vs. XRMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQTI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than XRMI's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQTI vs. XRMI - Dividend Comparison
LQTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.07%, less than XRMI's 12.61% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF | 9.07% | 7.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF | 12.61% | 12.35% | 11.86% | 12.62% | 12.84% | 2.93% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LQTI and XRMI have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LQTI has higher volatility (1.67%) compared to XRMI (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQTI dropped -3.41% vs XRMI's -15.31%.
On 1-year performance, XRMI leads with 9.53% vs 5.55% for LQTI. On fees, XRMI is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, XRMI has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, XRMI has performed better with a 9.53% return vs 5.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XRMI is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LQTI.
XRMI has the higher dividend yield at 12.61%, compared with 9.07% for LQTI.
They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LQTI and 0.60% for XRMI.
XRMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.10), 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.
Find the right allocation for LQTI and XRMI
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer