BBC vs. LFSC
BBC (Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. BBC is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, BBC returned 123.11% vs 60.36% for LFSC. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BBC charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.
Performance
BBC vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BBC achieves a 8.17% return, which is significantly higher than LFSC's 2.73% return.
BBC
- 1D
- -4.90%
- 1M
- -4.81%
- YTD
- 8.17%
- 6M
- 20.12%
- 1Y
- 123.11%
- 3Y*
- 19.82%
- 5Y*
- -2.05%
- 10Y*
- 7.60%
LFSC
- 1D
- -2.62%
- 1M
- -1.41%
- YTD
- 2.73%
- 6M
- 2.87%
- 1Y
- 60.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BBC vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
BBC Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF | 8.17% | 63.77% | -14.94% |
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 2.73% | 56.54% | -6.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between BBC and LFSC is 0.80, 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 | 0.80 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024 | 0.81 |
The correlation between BBC and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.81 - 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
BBC vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank
BBC
LFSC
BBC vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF (BBC) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). 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.
| BBC | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.49 | 2.33 | +1.15 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 4.11 | 3.25 | +0.86 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.48 | 1.38 | +0.09 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 8.82 | 3.94 | +4.88 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 28.55 | 11.02 | +17.53 |
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
| BBC | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.49 | 2.33 | +1.15 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.05 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.20 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.12 | 1.04 | -0.93 |
Drawdowns
BBC vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BBC drawdown since its inception was -76.85%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBC and LFSC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BBC | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -76.85% | -29.74% | -47.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.10% | -16.25% | +1.15% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -54.45% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -72.44% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -76.85% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.57% | -4.60% | -25.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -37.14% | -7.83% | -29.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.66% | 5.81% | -1.15% |
Volatility
BBC vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison
Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF (BBC) has a higher volatility of 11.21% compared to F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) at 7.47%. This indicates that BBC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BBC | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.21% | 7.47% | +3.74% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.65% | 18.58% | +8.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.74% | 26.08% | +9.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.31% | 28.92% | +10.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.75% | 28.92% | +8.83% |
BBC vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison
BBC has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.
Dividends
BBC vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison
BBC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.57%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BBC Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF | 1.57% | 1.70% | 1.00% | 0.34% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.09% | 0.00% | 0.51% |
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BBC and LFSC have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BBC has higher volatility (11.21%) compared to LFSC (7.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBC dropped -76.85% vs LFSC's -29.74%.
On 1-year performance, BBC leads with 123.11% vs 60.36% for LFSC. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BBC has performed better with a 123.11% return vs 60.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BBC.
BBC has the higher dividend yield at 1.57%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.
They also come from different issuers: Virtus Investment Partners and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BBC and 0.54% for LFSC.
BBC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 2.33), 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 BBC and LFSC
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