EKG vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

EKG (First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. EKG is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, EKG returned 4.48% vs 74.61% for LFSC. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EKG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

EKG vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) 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, EKG achieves a -4.18% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 18.23% return.

EKG

• 1D: 3.43%
• 1M: 9.19%
• YTD: -4.18%
• 6M: -5.58%
• 1Y: 4.48%
• 3Y*: 0.88%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: 1.61%
• 1M: 13.00%
• YTD: 18.23%
• 6M: 10.21%
• 1Y: 74.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EKG vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EKG First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF	-4.18%	11.89%	1.35%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	18.23%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between EKG and LFSC is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.63

The correlation between EKG and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EKG vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

EKG

EKG Risk / Return Rank: 11
EKG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
EKG Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
EKG Omega Ratio Rank: 11
EKG Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
EKG Martin Ratio Rank: 11

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 87
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

EKG vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) 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.

	EKG	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.20	2.83	-2.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.44	3.76	-3.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.45	-0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.20	4.62	-4.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.44	12.88	-12.44

EKG vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EKG Sharpe Ratio is 0.20, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EKG 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

EKG vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EKG drawdown since its inception was -43.82%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EKG and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	EKG	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.82%	-29.74%	-14.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.09%	-16.25%	-5.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.56%	0.00%	-15.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.59%	-7.56%	-15.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.19%	5.81%	+4.38%

Volatility

EKG vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) has a higher volatility of 8.59% compared to F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) at 7.85%. This indicates that EKG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EKG	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.59%	7.85%	+0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.85%	18.83%	-0.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.47%	26.60%	-4.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.12%	28.89%	-1.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.12%	28.89%	-1.77%

EKG vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

EKG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

EKG vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither EKG nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EKG and LFSC in my portfolio?

EKG and LFSC have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EKG or LFSC?

EKG has higher volatility (8.59%) compared to LFSC (7.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EKG dropped -43.82% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, EKG or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 74.61% vs 4.48% for EKG. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EKG or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 74.61% return vs 4.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EKG or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EKG.

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

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

What is the main difference between EKG and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EKG and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 0.20), 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.