CANC vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CANC (Tema Oncology ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CANC returned 56.68% vs 86.46% for LFSC. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CANC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

CANC vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) 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, CANC achieves a 16.92% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 24.40% return.

CANC

• 1D: -1.72%
• 1M: -2.95%
• 6M: 13.52%
• YTD: 16.92%
• 1Y: 56.68%
• 3Y*: 102.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -9.07%

LFSC

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: 27.81%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 1Y: 86.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 40.92%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	$1.11M	$1.31M	$1.24M
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$207.45K	$324.22K	$187.45K

CANC vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	16.92%	42.92%	-10.44%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between CANC and LFSC is 0.75, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.76

The correlation between CANC and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CANC vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CANC

CANC Risk / Return Rank: 93
CANC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CANC Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
CANC Omega Ratio Rank: 88
CANC Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CANC Martin Ratio Rank: 93

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 94
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 94
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CANC vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) 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.

	CANC	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	3.25	-0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.52	4.10	-0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.49	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.14	5.45	+0.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.53	15.35	+1.18

CANC vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CANC Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CANC 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

CANC vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CANC drawdown since its inception was -97.53%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANC and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CANC	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.53%	-29.74%	-67.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.30%	-16.25%	+6.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-51.53%	-3.85%	-47.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-72.46%	-7.26%	-65.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.45%	5.76%	-2.31%

Volatility

CANC vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) is 6.06%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that CANC 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

	CANC	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.06%	9.04%	-2.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.24%	19.86%	-3.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.78%	27.28%	-4.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	275.54%	28.89%	+246.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	275.54%	28.89%	+246.65%

CANC vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CANC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

CANC vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

CANC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	0.05%	0.06%	3.00%	0.56%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CANC and LFSC in my portfolio?

CANC and LFSC have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CANC or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to CANC (6.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANC dropped -97.53% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, CANC or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs 56.68% for CANC. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, CANC has been the lower-risk option at 6.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CANC or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs 56.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CANC or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CANC.

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

CANC has the higher dividend yield at 0.05%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between CANC and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Tema and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CANC and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 2.51), 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.