LSAT vs. IBTG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

LSAT (Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF) and IBTG (iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Treasury ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LSAT is a Money Market fund actively managed by Redwood, while IBTG is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Treasury Index. LSAT is actively managed, while IBTG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LSAT returned 6.09%/yr vs 0.84%/yr for IBTG. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. LSAT charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTG.

Performance

LSAT vs. IBTG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Treasury ETF (IBTG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LSAT achieves a 10.77% return, which is significantly higher than IBTG's 1.44% return.

LSAT

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 9.61%
• 1Y: 10.81%
• 3Y*: 11.89%
• 5Y*: 6.09%
• 10Y*: —

IBTG

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.44%
• 6M: 1.80%
• 1Y: 4.14%
• 3Y*: 4.11%
• 5Y*: 0.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

LSAT vs. IBTG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF	10.77%	-1.54%	18.16%	13.64%	-12.99%	25.10%	20.47%
IBTG iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Treasury ETF	1.44%	4.40%	3.97%	4.34%	-8.18%	-3.04%	0.02%

Correlation

The correlation between LSAT and IBTG is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.04
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2020	-0.05

Return for Risk

LSAT vs. IBTG — Risk / Return Rank

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

LSAT

LSAT Risk / Return Rank: 25
LSAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
LSAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
LSAT Omega Ratio Rank: 23
LSAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
LSAT Martin Ratio Rank: 24

IBTG

IBTG Risk / Return Rank: 99
IBTG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
IBTG Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBTG Omega Ratio Rank: 99
IBTG Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IBTG Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

LSAT vs. IBTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Treasury ETF (IBTG). 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.

	LSAT	IBTG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.86	8.02	-7.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	20.36	-19.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	4.40	-3.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.35	63.25	-61.89
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.18	255.75	-252.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LSAT vs. IBTG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSAT Sharpe Ratio is 0.86, which is lower than the IBTG Sharpe Ratio of 8.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSAT and IBTG, 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

	LSAT	IBTG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86	8.02	-7.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	0.26	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	0.29	+0.45

Drawdowns

LSAT vs. IBTG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSAT drawdown since its inception was -20.48%, which is greater than IBTG's maximum drawdown of -13.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSAT and IBTG.

Drawdown Indicators

	LSAT	IBTG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.48%	-13.62%	-6.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.94%	-0.07%	-7.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.25%	-1.33%	-16.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.48%	-12.31%	-8.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.56%	-4.90%	-0.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	0.02%	+3.35%

Volatility

LSAT vs. IBTG - Volatility Comparison

Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) has a higher volatility of 3.37% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Treasury ETF (IBTG) at 0.12%. This indicates that LSAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LSAT	IBTG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.37%	0.12%	+3.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.11%	0.32%	+8.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.57%	0.52%	+12.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.25%	3.27%	+12.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.76%	3.45%	+13.31%

LSAT vs. IBTG - Expense Ratio Comparison

LSAT has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTG's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

LSAT vs. IBTG - Dividend Comparison

LSAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, less than IBTG's 3.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBTG iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Treasury ETF	3.96%	4.03%	4.08%	3.61%	2.06%	0.66%	0.53%
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF	1.71%	1.90%	1.31%	1.85%	0.36%	3.44%	0.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LSAT and IBTG in my portfolio?

LSAT and IBTG have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LSAT or IBTG?

LSAT has higher volatility (3.37%) compared to IBTG (0.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSAT dropped -20.48% vs IBTG's -13.62%.

Which ETF is better, LSAT or IBTG?

On 5-year performance, LSAT leads with 6.09% vs 0.84% for IBTG. On fees, IBTG is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTG has been the lower-risk option at 0.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LSAT or IBTG?

Over the 5-year period, LSAT has performed better with a 6.09% return vs 0.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LSAT or IBTG?

IBTG is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LSAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LSAT or IBTG?

IBTG has the higher dividend yield at 3.96%, compared with 1.71% for LSAT.

What is the main difference between LSAT and IBTG?

LSAT is categorized as Money Market, while IBTG is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Redwood and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LSAT and 0.07% for IBTG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBTG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (8.02 vs 0.86), 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.