HRTS vs. LFSC

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC).

HRTS and LFSC are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. HRTS is an actively managed fund by Tema. It was launched on Nov 20, 2023. LFSC is an actively managed fund by F/m Investments. It was launched on Oct 30, 2024.

Performance

HRTS vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

HRTS vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
HRTS Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF	-3.74%	23.93%	-10.23%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	-4.62%	56.54%	-6.02%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HRTS achieves a -3.74% return, which is significantly higher than LFSC's -4.62% return.

HRTS

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -4.98%
• YTD: -3.74%
• 6M: 8.13%
• 1Y: 20.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -3.88%
• YTD: -4.62%
• 6M: 18.37%
• 1Y: 59.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HRTS vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

HRTS

Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF

LFSC

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF

Return for Risk

HRTS vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

HRTS

HRTS Risk / Return Rank: 53
HRTS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
HRTS Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
HRTS Omega Ratio Rank: 49
HRTS Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
HRTS Martin Ratio Rank: 46

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 87
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

HRTS vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) 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.

	HRTS	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	2.06	-0.99
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.79	-1.25
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.35	-0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.58	3.42	-1.84
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.72	9.51	-4.78
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HRTS vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HRTS Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HRTS and LFSC, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HRTS	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.07	2.06	-0.99
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.64	0.94	-0.30

Correlation

The correlation between HRTS and LFSC is 0.70, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

HRTS vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

HRTS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024
HRTS Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF	1.39%	1.34%	1.63%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

HRTS vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HRTS drawdown since its inception was -25.81%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HRTS and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	HRTS	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.81%	-29.74%	+3.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.01%	-16.25%	+5.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.25%	-11.25%	+4.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.12%	-8.26%	-0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.69%	5.84%	-2.15%

Volatility

HRTS vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) is 5.94%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 10.08%. This indicates that HRTS 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

	HRTS	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.94%	10.08%	-4.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.02%	19.95%	-8.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.25%	29.12%	-9.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.27%	29.27%	-10.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.27%	29.27%	-10.00%