IBRN vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IBRN (iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. IBRN is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, IBRN returned 52.57% vs 60.36% for LFSC. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBRN charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

IBRN vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) 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, IBRN achieves a 4.62% return, which is significantly higher than LFSC's 2.73% return.

IBRN

• 1D: -4.52%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 4.62%
• 6M: 12.73%
• 1Y: 52.57%
• 3Y*: 11.10%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: -2.62%
• 1M: -1.41%
• YTD: 2.73%
• 6M: 2.87%
• 1Y: 60.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBRN vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	4.62%	28.49%	-4.67%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	2.73%	56.54%	-6.02%

Correlation

The correlation between IBRN and LFSC is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.79

The correlation between IBRN and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IBRN vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBRN

IBRN Risk / Return Rank: 69
IBRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IBRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
IBRN Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IBRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBRN Martin Ratio Rank: 79

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 68
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

IBRN vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) 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.

	IBRN	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.33	-0.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	3.25	-0.31
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.38	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.30	3.94	+2.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.59	11.02	+4.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBRN vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBRN Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBRN 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IBRN	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	2.33	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	1.04	-0.67

Drawdowns

IBRN vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBRN drawdown since its inception was -35.38%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBRN and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBRN	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.38%	-29.74%	-5.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.80%	-16.25%	+7.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.28%	-4.60%	-1.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.83%	-7.83%	-2.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.56%	5.81%	-2.25%

Volatility

IBRN vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) have volatilities of 7.66% and 7.47%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBRN	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.66%	7.47%	+0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.29%	18.58%	+0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.38%	26.08%	-0.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.32%	28.92%	-3.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.32%	28.92%	-3.60%

IBRN vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IBRN vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

IBRN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	0.95%	0.99%	0.40%	0.06%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBRN and LFSC in my portfolio?

IBRN and LFSC have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBRN or LFSC?

IBRN has higher volatility (7.66%) compared to LFSC (7.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBRN dropped -35.38% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, IBRN or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 60.36% vs 52.57% for IBRN. On fees, IBRN is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBRN or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 60.36% return vs 52.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBRN or LFSC?

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

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

IBRN has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between IBRN and LFSC?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 2.09), 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.