MSTQ vs. RMIF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

MSTQ (LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF) and RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MSTQ is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Little Harbor Advisors, while RMIF is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by Little Harbor Advisors. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MSTQ returned 22.64%/yr vs 4.89%/yr for RMIF. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MSTQ charges 1.59%/yr vs 1.38%/yr for RMIF.

Performance

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ) and LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MSTQ achieves a 15.85% return, which is significantly higher than RMIF's -0.68% return.

MSTQ

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: 15.85%
• 6M: 14.73%
• 1Y: 31.60%
• 3Y*: 22.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMIF

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.42%
• YTD: -0.68%
• 6M: -0.49%
• 1Y: 3.09%
• 3Y*: 4.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MSTQ LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF	15.85%	20.57%	19.58%	13.33%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.68%	4.36%	7.00%	4.09%

Correlation

The correlation between MSTQ and RMIF is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.54

The correlation between MSTQ and RMIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MSTQ vs. RMIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSTQ

MSTQ Risk / Return Rank: 57
MSTQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
MSTQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
MSTQ Omega Ratio Rank: 61
MSTQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
MSTQ Martin Ratio Rank: 48

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 31
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ) and LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF). 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.

	MSTQ	RMIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	1.17	+0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.69	1.70	+0.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.22	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.56	1.31	+1.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.87	3.44	+4.43

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSTQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the RMIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSTQ and RMIF, 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

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSTQ drawdown since its inception was -31.05%, which is greater than RMIF's maximum drawdown of -3.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSTQ and RMIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSTQ	RMIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.05%	-3.01%	-28.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.39%	-2.37%	-10.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.22%	-3.01%	-12.21%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.52%	-1.14%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.55%	-0.40%	-8.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.03%	0.90%	+3.13%

Volatility

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Volatility Comparison

LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF (MSTQ) has a higher volatility of 7.14% compared to LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) at 0.61%. This indicates that MSTQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSTQ	RMIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.14%	0.61%	+6.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.07%	2.01%	+10.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.61%	2.66%	+12.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.01%	2.59%	+16.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.01%	2.59%	+16.42%

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSTQ has a 1.59% expense ratio, which is higher than RMIF's 1.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSTQ vs. RMIF - Dividend Comparison

MSTQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.06%, more than RMIF's 5.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
MSTQ LHA Market State Tactical Q ETF	12.06%	13.97%	3.72%	0.77%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.29%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSTQ and RMIF in my portfolio?

MSTQ and RMIF have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MSTQ or RMIF?

MSTQ has higher volatility (7.14%) compared to RMIF (0.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSTQ dropped -31.05% vs RMIF's -3.01%.

Which ETF is better, MSTQ or RMIF?

On 3-year performance, MSTQ leads with 22.64% vs 4.89% for RMIF. On fees, RMIF is cheaper at 1.38% per year. On volatility, RMIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSTQ or RMIF?

Over the 3-year period, MSTQ has performed better with a 22.64% return vs 4.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSTQ or RMIF?

RMIF is cheaper with a 1.38% expense ratio, compared with 1.59% for MSTQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MSTQ or RMIF?

MSTQ has the higher dividend yield at 12.06%, compared with 5.29% for RMIF.

What is the main difference between MSTQ and RMIF?

MSTQ is categorized as Options Trading, while RMIF is Multisector Bonds. Their fees differ too: 1.59% for MSTQ and 1.38% for RMIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSTQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.17), 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.