HEAL vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

HEAL (Global X HealthTech ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. HEAL is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, HEAL returned -10.31% vs 86.74% for LFSC. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. HEAL charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

HEAL vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) 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, HEAL achieves a -5.19% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 24.59% return.

HEAL

• 1D: 2.94%
• 1M: -4.37%
• 6M: -2.05%
• YTD: -5.19%
• 1Y: -10.31%
• 3Y*: -6.93%
• 5Y*: -12.95%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -9.16%

LFSC

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -1.13%
• 6M: 25.59%
• YTD: 24.59%
• 1Y: 86.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 40.81%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	$260.96K	$227.88K	$213.27K
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$163.54K	$305.14K	$188.81K

HEAL vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	-5.19%	-0.62%	2.82%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.59%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL and LFSC is 0.54, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.56

The correlation between HEAL and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

HEAL vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

HEAL

HEAL Risk / Return Rank: 6
HEAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
HEAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
HEAL Omega Ratio Rank: 6
HEAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
HEAL Martin Ratio Rank: 7

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 94
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 93
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 90

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

HEAL vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) 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.

	HEAL	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.45	3.20	-3.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.51	4.06	-4.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.49	-0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.34	5.37	-5.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.61	15.11	-15.72

HEAL vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEAL Sharpe Ratio is -0.45, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL 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

HEAL vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL drawdown since its inception was -65.76%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEAL	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.76%	-29.74%	-36.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.71%	-16.25%	-14.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-59.07%	-3.71%	-55.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.49%	-7.25%	-36.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.90%	5.76%	+11.14%

Volatility

HEAL vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) is 6.91%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 8.90%. This indicates that HEAL 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

	HEAL	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.91%	8.90%	-1.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.44%	19.82%	-2.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.91%	27.32%	-4.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.67%	28.85%	-2.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.27%	28.85%	-2.58%

HEAL vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

HEAL has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

HEAL vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

HEAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.26%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	0.26%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HEAL and LFSC in my portfolio?

HEAL and LFSC have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HEAL or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (8.90%) compared to HEAL (6.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HEAL dropped -65.76% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, HEAL or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.74% vs -10.31% for HEAL. On fees, HEAL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, HEAL has been the lower-risk option at 6.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HEAL or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.74% return vs -10.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HEAL or LFSC?

HEAL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

HEAL has the higher dividend yield at 0.26%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between HEAL and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for HEAL and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.20 vs -0.45), 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.