GDOC vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GDOC (Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GDOC returned 8.39% vs 75.19% for LFSC. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GDOC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

GDOC vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC) 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, GDOC achieves a -5.08% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 15.76% return.

GDOC

• 1D: 1.69%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: -5.08%
• 6M: -6.35%
• 1Y: 8.39%
• 3Y*: 0.91%
• 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)

GDOC vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GDOC Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF	-5.08%	10.74%	-6.02%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	15.76%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between GDOC and LFSC is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.66

The correlation between GDOC and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GDOC vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDOC

GDOC Risk / Return Rank: 15
GDOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
GDOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
GDOC Omega Ratio Rank: 15
GDOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
GDOC Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

GDOC vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC) 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.

	GDOC	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.53	2.85	-2.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	3.78	-2.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.45	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.54	4.65	-4.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.18	12.98	-11.80

GDOC vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDOC Sharpe Ratio is 0.53, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDOC 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

GDOC vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDOC drawdown since its inception was -31.01%, roughly equal to the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDOC and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDOC	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.01%	-29.74%	-1.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.67%	-16.25%	+0.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.08%	0.00%	-13.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.87%	-7.60%	-8.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.14%	5.81%	+1.33%

Volatility

GDOC vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC) is 5.01%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.93%. This indicates that GDOC 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

	GDOC	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	7.93%	-2.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.00%	18.96%	-6.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.94%	26.61%	-10.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.77%	28.93%	-10.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.77%	28.93%	-10.16%

GDOC vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDOC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDOC vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

GDOC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
GDOC Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF	0.34%	0.32%	0.02%	0.55%	0.00%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDOC and LFSC in my portfolio?

GDOC and LFSC have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDOC or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.93%) compared to GDOC (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDOC dropped -31.01% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, GDOC or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.19% vs 8.39% for GDOC. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, GDOC has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDOC or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.19% return vs 8.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDOC or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GDOC.

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

GDOC has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between GDOC and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GDOC and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 0.53), 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.