IBB vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IBB (iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. IBB is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, IBB returned 40.47% vs 86.46% for LFSC. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IBB charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

IBB vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) 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, IBB achieves a 10.55% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 24.40% return.

IBB

• 1D: -1.87%
• 1M: -4.75%
• 6M: 8.20%
• YTD: 10.55%
• 1Y: 40.47%
• 3Y*: 13.65%
• 5Y*: 2.65%
• 10Y*: 6.89%
• ALL TIME*: 7.16%

LFSC

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: 27.81%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 1Y: 86.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 40.92%

*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)
IBB iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF	$252.83M	$308.82M	$278.87M
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$207.45K	$324.22K	$187.45K

IBB vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBB iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF	10.55%	27.98%	-7.12%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IBB and LFSC is 0.77, 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.	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.77

The correlation between IBB and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IBB vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBB

IBB Risk / Return Rank: 86
IBB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
IBB Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
IBB Omega Ratio Rank: 79
IBB Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBB Martin Ratio Rank: 86

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 94
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 94
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

IBB vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) 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.

	IBB	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	3.25	-1.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.80	4.10	-1.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.49	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.25	5.45	-1.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.35	15.35	-2.99

IBB vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBB Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBB 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

IBB vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBB drawdown since its inception was -62.85%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBB and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBB	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.85%	-29.74%	-33.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.63%	-16.25%	+6.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.82%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.96%	-3.85%	-2.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.06%	-7.26%	-13.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.31%	5.76%	-2.45%

Volatility

IBB vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) is 6.14%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that IBB 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

	IBB	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.14%	9.04%	-2.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.87%	19.86%	-3.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.45%	27.28%	-6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.12%	28.89%	-6.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.12%	28.89%	-5.77%

IBB vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBB has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBB vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

IBB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBB iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF	0.22%	0.23%	0.29%	0.26%	0.31%	0.21%	0.21%	0.33%	0.20%	0.30%	0.19%	0.03%
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 IBB and LFSC in my portfolio?

IBB and LFSC have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBB or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to IBB (6.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBB dropped -62.85% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, IBB or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs 40.47% for IBB. On fees, IBB is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBB has been the lower-risk option at 6.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBB or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs 40.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBB or LFSC?

IBB is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

IBB has the higher dividend yield at 0.22%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between IBB and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBB and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 2.00), 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.