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 3.15% vs -1.76% for LIBD. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. 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 0.08% return, which is significantly higher than LIBD's -2.15% return.
ZTEN
- 1D
- 0.60%
- 1M
- -0.73%
- 6M
- 0.06%
- YTD
- 0.08%
- 1Y
- 3.15%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.79%
LIBD
- 1D
- 0.45%
- 1M
- -2.48%
- 6M
- -2.21%
- YTD
- -2.15%
- 1Y
- -1.76%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -1.77%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.47K | $10.85K | $6.55K | |
| $51.21K | $43.84K | $104.13K |
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.08% | 9.41% |
LIBD LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF | -2.15% | -0.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZTEN and LIBD is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 6, 2025 | 0.84 |
The correlation between ZTEN and LIBD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 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.
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.
| ZTEN | LIBD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.87 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.20 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 0.97 | +0.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.95 | -0.25 | +1.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.62 | -0.51 | +3.14 |
Loading charts...
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% | -6.96% | +3.64% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.54% | -6.21% | +4.67% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.86% | -3.47% | +2.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.20% | 3.45% | -2.25% |
Volatility
ZTEN vs. LIBD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) is 1.53%, while LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF (LIBD) has a volatility of 1.95%. 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 | 1.53% | 1.95% | -0.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.07% | 5.85% | -1.78% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.92% | 7.83% | -2.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.73% | 9.93% | -4.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.73% | 9.93% | -4.20% |
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 5.08%, less than LIBD's 11.78% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
LIBD LifeX 2065 Inflation-Protected Longevity Income ETF | 11.78% | 13.52% | 0.00% |
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 5.08% | 5.16% | 0.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZTEN and LIBD have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LIBD has higher volatility (1.95%) compared to ZTEN (1.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZTEN dropped -3.43% vs LIBD's -7.31%.
On 1-year performance, ZTEN leads with 3.15% vs -1.76% for LIBD. On fees, ZTEN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.53%. 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 3.15% return vs -1.76%. 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 11.78%, compared with 5.08% 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 (0.64 vs -0.23), 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