CPAG vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CPAG (F/m Compoundr U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CPAG is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Nasdaq Compoundr U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments. CPAG is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CPAG charges 0.31%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

CPAG vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Compoundr U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (CPAG) 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, CPAG achieves a 0.11% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 15.76% return.

CPAG

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 0.11%
• 6M: 0.15%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: 2.09%
• 1M: 10.64%
• YTD: 15.76%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 75.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPAG vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPAG F/m Compoundr U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF	0.11%	2.26%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	15.76%	41.60%

Correlation

The correlation between CPAG and LFSC is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 12, 2025	0.28

Return for Risk

CPAG vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPAG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 83
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

CPAG vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Compoundr U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (CPAG) 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.

	CPAG	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.85	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.78	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.45	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.65	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	12.98	—

Drawdowns

CPAG vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPAG drawdown since its inception was -2.78%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPAG and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPAG	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.78%	-29.74%	+26.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-16.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.56%	0.00%	-1.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.78%	-7.60%	+6.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.81%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CPAG	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	7.93%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	18.96%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.71%	26.61%	-22.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.71%	28.93%	-25.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.71%	28.93%	-25.22%

CPAG vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPAG has a 0.31% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPAG vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPAG nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPAG and LFSC in my portfolio?

CPAG and LFSC have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CPAG or LFSC?

On fees, CPAG is cheaper at 0.31% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPAG or LFSC?

CPAG is cheaper with a 0.31% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

CPAG and LFSC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CPAG and LFSC?

CPAG is categorized as Total Bond Market, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.31% for CPAG and 0.54% for LFSC.