BMED vs. CNCR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BMED (Future Health ETF) and CNCR (Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. BMED is actively managed, while CNCR is passively managed. BMED charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for CNCR.

Performance

BMED vs. CNCR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Future Health ETF (BMED) and Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF (CNCR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

BMED

• 1D: 1.98%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: -5.19%
• 6M: -5.93%
• 1Y: 17.59%
• 3Y*: 5.91%
• 5Y*: -0.08%
• 10Y*: —

CNCR

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BMED vs. CNCR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
BMED Future Health ETF	-6.97%
CNCR Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF	0.00%

BMED vs. CNCR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMED	CNCR
Healthcare	100.0%	96.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	3.3%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BMED vs. CNCR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMED

BMED Risk / Return Rank: 29
BMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
BMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
BMED Omega Ratio Rank: 31
BMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
BMED Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

BMED vs. CNCR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Future Health ETF (BMED) and Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF (CNCR). 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.

	BMED	CNCR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.00	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BMED	CNCR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	—	—

Drawdowns

BMED vs. CNCR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMED drawdown since its inception was -36.44%, which is greater than CNCR's maximum drawdown of 0.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMED and CNCR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMED	CNCR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.44%	0.00%	-36.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.17%	0.00%	-11.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.08%	0.00%	-19.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.88%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BMED	CNCR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.74%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.23%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.23%	0.00%	+15.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.43%	0.00%	+17.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.77%	0.00%	+17.77%

BMED vs. CNCR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BMED has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CNCR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

BMED vs. CNCR - Dividend Comparison

Neither BMED nor CNCR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BMED Future Health ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%
CNCR Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Which ETF is better, BMED or CNCR?

On fees, CNCR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMED or CNCR?

CNCR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BMED.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BMED or CNCR?

BMED and CNCR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BMED and CNCR?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BMED and 0.79% for CNCR.