BMED vs. LFSC

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Future Health ETF (BMED) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC).

BMED and LFSC are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BMED is an actively managed fund by BlackRock. It was launched on Sep 29, 2020. LFSC is an actively managed fund by F/m Investments. It was launched on Oct 30, 2024.

Performance

BMED vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

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

BMED vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BMED Future Health ETF	-4.58%	21.79%	-2.28%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	-4.45%	56.54%	-6.02%

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BMED having a -4.58% return and LFSC slightly higher at -4.45%.

BMED

• 1D: 2.68%
• 1M: -6.75%
• YTD: -4.58%
• 6M: 7.95%
• 1Y: 19.34%
• 3Y*: 7.27%
• 5Y*: 0.33%
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: 6.16%
• 1M: -3.82%
• YTD: -4.45%
• 6M: 17.66%
• 1Y: 55.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BMED vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BMED has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

BMED

Future Health ETF

LFSC

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF

Return for Risk

BMED vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMED

BMED Risk / Return Rank: 57
BMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
BMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
BMED Omega Ratio Rank: 55
BMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BMED Martin Ratio Rank: 52

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 86
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 82
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Future Health ETF (BMED) 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.

	BMED	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	1.93	-0.86
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.65	-1.10
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.33	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.51	3.20	-1.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.06	8.96	-3.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BMED vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMED Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMED and LFSC, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BMED	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.07	1.93	-0.86
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.02	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	0.94	-0.81

Correlation

The correlation between BMED and LFSC is 0.76, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

BMED vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither BMED nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BMED Future Health ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

BMED vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMED drawdown since its inception was -36.44%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMED and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMED	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.44%	-29.74%	-6.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.31%	-16.25%	+3.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.60%	-11.08%	+0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.30%	-8.25%	-11.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.67%	5.80%	-2.13%

Volatility

BMED vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Future Health ETF (BMED) is 6.08%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 10.35%. This indicates that BMED 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

	BMED	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.08%	10.35%	-4.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.07%	19.97%	-8.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.25%	29.24%	-10.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.43%	29.31%	-11.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.82%	29.31%	-11.49%