LTPZ vs. FFUT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LTPZ (PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF) and FFUT (Fidelity Managed Futures ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LTPZ is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE BofA US Inflation-Linked Treasury (15+ Y), while FFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Fidelity. LTPZ is passively managed, while FFUT is actively managed. Over the past year, LTPZ returned 2.88% vs 18.72% for FFUT. At a correlation of -0.21, they often move in opposite directions. LTPZ charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFUT.

Performance

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LTPZ achieves a -0.06% return, which is significantly lower than FFUT's 8.83% return.

LTPZ

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 0.76%
• YTD: -0.06%
• 6M: -0.12%
• 1Y: 2.88%
• 3Y*: -1.61%
• 5Y*: -5.64%
• 10Y*: 0.61%

FFUT

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: -2.69%
• YTD: 8.83%
• 6M: 9.28%
• 1Y: 18.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF	-0.06%	3.00%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	8.83%	8.58%

Correlation

The correlation between LTPZ and FFUT 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 Jun 5, 2025	-0.22

Return for Risk

LTPZ vs. FFUT — Risk / Return Rank

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

LTPZ

LTPZ Risk / Return Rank: 13
LTPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LTPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
LTPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 12
LTPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
LTPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 13

FFUT

FFUT Risk / Return Rank: 64
FFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
FFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). 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.

	LTPZ	FFUT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.32	1.68	-1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	2.40	-1.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.32	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.41	4.35	-3.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.86	14.55	-13.69

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LTPZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.32, which is lower than the FFUT Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LTPZ and FFUT, 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

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LTPZ drawdown since its inception was -40.99%, which is greater than FFUT's maximum drawdown of -4.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LTPZ and FFUT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LTPZ	FFUT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.99%	-4.33%	-36.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.00%	-4.33%	-2.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.05%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.99%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.06%	-4.33%	-28.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.47%	-0.96%	-11.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	1.29%	+2.05%

Volatility

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) is 2.52%, while Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT) has a volatility of 2.93%. This indicates that LTPZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFUT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LTPZ	FFUT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.52%	2.93%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.62%	8.97%	-2.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.13%	11.22%	-2.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.86%	11.02%	+4.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.07%	11.02%	+4.05%

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison

LTPZ has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FFUT's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

LTPZ vs. FFUT - Dividend Comparison

LTPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.25%, more than FFUT's 1.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	1.92%	2.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF	5.25%	4.64%	3.71%	3.71%	8.38%	3.56%	1.42%	1.74%	3.05%	2.25%	2.32%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LTPZ and FFUT in my portfolio?

LTPZ and FFUT 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, LTPZ or FFUT?

FFUT has higher volatility (2.93%) compared to LTPZ (2.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LTPZ dropped -40.99% vs FFUT's -4.33%.

Which ETF is better, LTPZ or FFUT?

On 1-year performance, FFUT leads with 18.72% vs 2.88% for LTPZ. On fees, LTPZ is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, LTPZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LTPZ or FFUT?

Over the 1-year period, FFUT has performed better with a 18.72% return vs 2.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LTPZ or FFUT?

LTPZ is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FFUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LTPZ or FFUT?

LTPZ has the higher dividend yield at 5.25%, compared with 1.92% for FFUT.

What is the main difference between LTPZ and FFUT?

LTPZ is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while FFUT is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LTPZ and 0.80% for FFUT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFUT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.68 vs 0.32), 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.