CNCR vs. LFSC
CNCR (Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. CNCR is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. CNCR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.
Performance
CNCR vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
CNCR
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LFSC
- 1D
- -2.62%
- 1M
- -1.41%
- YTD
- 2.73%
- 6M
- 2.87%
- 1Y
- 60.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNCR vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
CNCR Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF | 0.00% |
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 6.44% |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CNCR vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank
CNCR
LFSC
CNCR vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF (CNCR) 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CNCR | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.33 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | — | 1.04 | — |
Drawdowns
CNCR vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNCR drawdown since its inception was 0.00%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNCR and LFSC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNCR | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | 0.00% | -29.74% | +29.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -16.25% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -4.60% | +4.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | 0.00% | -7.83% | +7.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.81% | — |
Volatility
CNCR vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNCR | LFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 7.47% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 18.58% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.00% | 26.08% | -26.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.00% | 28.92% | -28.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 0.00% | 28.92% | -28.92% |
CNCR vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNCR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNCR vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNCR nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for CNCR.
CNCR and LFSC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for CNCR and 0.54% for LFSC.
Find the right allocation for CNCR and LFSC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer