ZTEN vs. LIBD
ZTEN (F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and LIBD (LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZTEN is a Long-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while LIBD is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund actively managed by Stone Ridge. ZTEN is passively managed, while LIBD is actively managed. Over the past year, ZTEN returned 6.32% vs 2.86% for LIBD. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ZTEN charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for LIBD.
Performance
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZTEN achieves a 0.33% return, which is significantly lower than LIBD's 0.67% return.
ZTEN
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- 0.29%
- YTD
- 0.33%
- 6M
- 0.40%
- 1Y
- 6.32%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LIBD
- 1D
- 0.19%
- 1M
- 0.76%
- YTD
- 0.67%
- 6M
- -0.45%
- 1Y
- 2.86%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.33% | 9.62% |
LIBD LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF | 0.67% | 3.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZTEN and LIBD is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2025 | 0.84 |
The correlation between ZTEN and LIBD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
ZTEN vs. LIBD — Risk / Return Rank
ZTEN
LIBD
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) and LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIBD). 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.
| ZTEN | LIBD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.92 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.06 | +0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.91 | 0.46 | +1.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.21 | 0.99 | +5.22 |
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
| ZTEN | LIBD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.28 | 0.36 | +0.92 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.16 | 0.30 | +0.86 |
Drawdowns
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZTEN drawdown since its inception was -3.43%, smaller than the maximum LIBD drawdown of -7.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZTEN and LIBD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZTEN | LIBD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.43% | -7.31% | +3.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.32% | -6.19% | +2.87% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.30% | -3.51% | +2.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.79% | -3.20% | +2.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.02% | 2.90% | -1.88% |
Volatility
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) is 1.60%, while LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIBD) has a volatility of 2.12%. This indicates that ZTEN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LIBD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZTEN | LIBD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.60% | 2.12% | -0.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.77% | 5.65% | -1.88% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.99% | 8.08% | -3.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.79% | 9.62% | -3.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.79% | 9.62% | -3.83% |
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZTEN has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than LIBD's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Dividend Comparison
ZTEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.07%, less than LIBD's 11.48% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
LIBD LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF | 11.48% | 13.52% | 0.00% |
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 5.07% | 5.16% | 0.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZTEN and LIBD have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LIBD has higher volatility (2.12%) compared to ZTEN (1.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZTEN dropped -3.43% vs LIBD's -7.31%.
On 1-year performance, ZTEN leads with 6.32% vs 2.86% for LIBD. On fees, ZTEN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ZTEN has performed better with a 6.32% return vs 2.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ZTEN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LIBD.
LIBD has the higher dividend yield at 11.48%, compared with 5.07% for ZTEN.
ZTEN is categorized as Long-Term Bond, while LIBD is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: F/m and Stone Ridge. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for ZTEN and 0.25% for LIBD.
ZTEN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs 0.36), 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 ZTEN and LIBD
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