BBP vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BBP (Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. BBP is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, BBP returned 59.95% vs 75.29% for LFSC. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BBP charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

BBP vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BBP having a 16.04% return and LFSC slightly higher at 16.36%.

BBP

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: 7.69%
• YTD: 16.04%
• 6M: 14.38%
• 1Y: 59.95%
• 3Y*: 20.40%
• 5Y*: 11.34%
• 10Y*: 13.69%

LFSC

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 11.21%
• YTD: 16.36%
• 6M: 9.80%
• 1Y: 75.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BBP vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BBP Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF	16.04%	33.15%	-6.51%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	16.36%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between BBP and LFSC is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.80

The correlation between BBP and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BBP vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BBP

BBP Risk / Return Rank: 85
BBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
BBP Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
BBP Martin Ratio Rank: 91

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 85
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

BBP vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP) 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.

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.

	BBP	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.52	2.85	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.42	3.79	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.45	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.49	4.66	+1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.18	13.00	+7.18

BBP vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBP Sharpe Ratio is 2.52, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBP and LFSC, 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

BBP vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBP drawdown since its inception was -44.32%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBP and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBP	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.32%	-29.74%	-14.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.28%	-16.25%	+6.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.89%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.98%	-7.58%	-4.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.98%	5.81%	-2.83%

Volatility

BBP vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP) is 6.46%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.86%. This indicates that BBP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BBP	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	7.86%	-1.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.88%	18.94%	-0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.96%	26.56%	-2.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.37%	28.90%	-2.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.39%	28.90%	-1.51%

BBP vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBP has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

BBP vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither BBP nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BBP Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.18%	0.00%	1.29%
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

Can I hold both BBP and LFSC in my portfolio?

BBP and LFSC have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BBP or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.86%) compared to BBP (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBP dropped -44.32% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, BBP or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.29% vs 59.95% for BBP. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, BBP has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BBP or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.29% return vs 59.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BBP or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BBP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BBP or LFSC?

BBP and LFSC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BBP and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Virtus Investment Partners and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BBP and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 2.52), 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.