GERM vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GERM (Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. GERM is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, GERM returned 0.00% vs 58.79% for LFSC. GERM charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

GERM vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GERM

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 0.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

GERM vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GERM Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%

Return for Risk

GERM vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

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.

GERM vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM) 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.

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

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GERM	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	—	1.07	—

Drawdowns

GERM vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GERM drawdown since its inception was 0.00%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GERM and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GERM	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	0.00%	-29.74%	+29.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	0.00%	-16.25%	+16.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-3.57%	+3.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	0.00%	-7.82%	+7.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.00%	5.82%	-5.82%

Volatility

GERM vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM) is 0.00%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.43%. This indicates that GERM 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

	GERM	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	7.43%	-7.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.00%	18.52%	-18.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.00%	26.01%	-26.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.00%	28.90%	-28.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.00%	28.90%	-28.90%

GERM vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GERM has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

GERM vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither GERM nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is riskier, GERM or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to GERM (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GERM dropped 0.00% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, GERM or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 0.00% for GERM. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, GERM has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GERM or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 0.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GERM or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for GERM.

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

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

What is the main difference between GERM and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for GERM and 0.54% for LFSC.