BMED vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BMED (Future Health ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BMED returned 19.02% vs 75.29% for LFSC. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BMED charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMED achieves a -4.52% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 16.36% return.

BMED

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: 3.10%
• YTD: -4.52%
• 6M: -5.65%
• 1Y: 19.02%
• 3Y*: 5.62%
• 5Y*: -0.97%
• 10Y*: —

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)

BMED vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BMED Future Health ETF	-4.52%	21.79%	-3.21%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	16.36%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between BMED and LFSC is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.75

The correlation between BMED and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

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: 32
BMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
BMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
BMED Omega Ratio Rank: 34
BMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
BMED Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

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.

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.

	BMED	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	2.85	-1.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	3.79	-1.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.45	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	4.66	-3.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.01	13.00	-9.99

BMED vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMED Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMED 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

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	-14.85%	-16.25%	+1.40%
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	-10.54%	0.00%	-10.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.01%	-7.58%	-11.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.34%	5.81%	+0.53%

Volatility

BMED vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Future Health ETF (BMED) is 4.76%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.86%. 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	4.76%	7.86%	-3.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.41%	18.94%	-7.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.41%	26.56%	-11.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.45%	28.90%	-11.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.74%	28.90%	-11.16%

BMED vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BMED vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

BMED's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.28%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BMED Future Health ETF	0.28%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMED and LFSC in my portfolio?

BMED and LFSC have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMED or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.86%) compared to BMED (4.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMED dropped -36.44% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, BMED or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.29% vs 19.02% for BMED. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, BMED has been the lower-risk option at 4.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BMED or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.29% return vs 19.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMED or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BMED.

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

BMED has the higher dividend yield at 0.28%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between BMED and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BMED and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 1.24), 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.