IHI vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IHI (iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. IHI is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, IHI returned -11.60% vs 86.46% for LFSC. Their 0.44 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IHI charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

IHI vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI) 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, IHI achieves a -15.32% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 24.40% return.

IHI

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 1.21%
• 6M: -12.40%
• YTD: -15.32%
• 1Y: -11.60%
• 3Y*: -1.46%
• 5Y*: -3.35%
• 10Y*: 8.58%
• ALL TIME*: 10.02%

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)
IHI iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF	$145.90M	$167.07M	$148.77M
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$207.45K	$324.22K	$187.45K

IHI vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IHI iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF	-15.32%	6.88%	-1.27%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IHI and LFSC is 0.36, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.44

Return for Risk

IHI vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IHI

IHI Risk / Return Rank: 5
IHI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
IHI Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
IHI Omega Ratio Rank: 4
IHI Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
IHI Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

IHI vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI) 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.

	IHI	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.59	3.25	-3.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.74	4.10	-4.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.92	1.49	-0.58
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.45	5.45	-5.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.88	15.35	-16.23

IHI vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IHI Sharpe Ratio is -0.59, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IHI 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

IHI vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IHI drawdown since its inception was -49.65%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IHI and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IHI	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.65%	-29.74%	-19.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.11%	-16.25%	-9.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.64%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.04%	-3.85%	-16.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.43%	-7.26%	-1.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.27%	5.76%	+7.51%

Volatility

IHI vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF (IHI) has a higher volatility of 9.58% compared to F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) at 9.04%. This indicates that IHI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IHI	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.58%	9.04%	+0.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.58%	19.86%	-3.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.90%	27.28%	-7.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.55%	28.89%	-9.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.01%	28.89%	-8.88%

IHI vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IHI has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

IHI vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

IHI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.46%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IHI iShares U.S. Medical Devices ETF	0.46%	0.34%	0.46%	0.53%	0.45%	0.25%	0.25%	0.33%	0.26%	0.37%	0.55%	1.28%
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 IHI and LFSC in my portfolio?

IHI and LFSC have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IHI or LFSC?

IHI has higher volatility (9.58%) compared to LFSC (9.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IHI dropped -49.65% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, IHI or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs -11.60% for IHI. On fees, IHI is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 9.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IHI or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs -11.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IHI or LFSC?

IHI is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

IHI has the higher dividend yield at 0.46%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between IHI and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for IHI and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs -0.59), 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.