FBT vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FBT (First Trust Amex Biotechnology Index) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. FBT is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, FBT returned 35.94% vs 58.79% for LFSC. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FBT charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

FBT vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Amex Biotechnology Index (FBT) 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, FBT achieves a 7.08% return, which is significantly higher than LFSC's 3.84% return.

FBT

• 1D: 2.92%
• 1M: 6.19%
• YTD: 7.08%
• 6M: 3.95%
• 1Y: 35.94%
• 3Y*: 12.40%
• 5Y*: 6.79%
• 10Y*: 8.86%

LFSC

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: -1.63%
• YTD: 3.84%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 58.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FBT vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FBT First Trust Amex Biotechnology Index	7.08%	24.25%	-1.66%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%

Correlation

The correlation between FBT and LFSC is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.68

The correlation between FBT and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FBT vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBT

FBT Risk / Return Rank: 49
FBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
FBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FBT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
FBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
FBT Martin Ratio Rank: 45

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 67
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

FBT vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Amex Biotechnology Index (FBT) 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.

	FBT	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.74	2.28	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.56	3.19	-0.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.38	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.53	3.64	-1.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.43	10.14	-2.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FBT vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBT Sharpe Ratio is 1.74, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBT 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FBT	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.74	2.28	-0.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.37	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.51	1.07	-0.56

Drawdowns

FBT vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBT drawdown since its inception was -40.51%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBT and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBT	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.51%	-29.74%	-10.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.26%	-16.25%	+1.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.05%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.05%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.72%	-3.57%	+2.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.17%	-7.82%	-3.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.85%	5.82%	-0.97%

Volatility

FBT vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Amex Biotechnology Index (FBT) is 6.94%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.43%. This indicates that FBT 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

	FBT	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.94%	7.43%	-0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.87%	18.52%	-2.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.79%	26.01%	-5.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.89%	28.90%	-7.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.91%	28.90%	-4.99%

FBT vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBT has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBT vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither FBT nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBT First Trust Amex Biotechnology Index	0.00%	0.00%	0.71%	0.00%	0.00%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.12%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBT and LFSC in my portfolio?

FBT and LFSC have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBT or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to FBT (6.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBT dropped -40.51% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, FBT or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 35.94% for FBT. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, FBT has been the lower-risk option at 6.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBT or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 35.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBT or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for FBT.

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

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

What is the main difference between FBT and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for FBT and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.74), 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.