CPHY vs. LFSC

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

CPHY (F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CPHY is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Nasdaq Compoundr U.S. High Yield Bond Index, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments. CPHY is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CPHY charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

CPHY vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF (CPHY) 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, CPHY achieves a 0.72% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 26.42% return.

CPHY

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.15%
• 6M: 0.27%
• YTD: 0.72%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: -2.29%
• 1M: 15.25%
• 6M: 26.72%
• YTD: 26.42%
• 1Y: 84.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPHY vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPHY F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF	0.72%	2.43%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	26.42%	41.60%

Correlation

The correlation between CPHY and LFSC is 0.52, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 12, 2025	0.52

Return for Risk

CPHY vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPHY

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 92
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

CPHY vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF (CPHY) 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.

	CPHY	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	3.05	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.95	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.47	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.99	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	14.13	—

Drawdowns

CPHY vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPHY drawdown since its inception was -2.51%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPHY and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPHY	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.51%	-29.74%	+27.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-16.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-2.29%	+2.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.54%	-7.37%	+6.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.74%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CPHY	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	5.83%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	18.67%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.50%	26.59%	-23.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.50%	28.72%	-25.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.50%	28.72%	-25.22%

CPHY vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPHY has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPHY vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPHY nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPHY and LFSC in my portfolio?

CPHY and LFSC have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CPHY or LFSC?

On fees, CPHY is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPHY or LFSC?

CPHY is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

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

What is the main difference between CPHY and LFSC?

CPHY is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CPHY and 0.54% for LFSC.