LFSC vs. BBP
LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and BBP (Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while BBP is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 58.79% vs 45.02% for BBP. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for BBP.
Performance
LFSC vs. BBP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 3.84% return, which is significantly lower than BBP's 5.80% return.
LFSC
- 1D
- 1.08%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- 3.84%
- 6M
- 1.68%
- 1Y
- 58.79%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BBP
- 1D
- 1.18%
- 1M
- -3.14%
- YTD
- 5.80%
- 6M
- 7.91%
- 1Y
- 45.02%
- 3Y*
- 16.70%
- 5Y*
- 10.37%
- 10Y*
- 11.61%
LFSC vs. BBP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 3.84% | 56.54% | -6.02% |
BBP Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF | 5.80% | 33.15% | -5.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFSC and BBP is 0.77, 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 | 0.77 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024 | 0.80 |
The correlation between LFSC and BBP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LFSC vs. BBP — Risk / Return Rank
LFSC
BBP
LFSC vs. BBP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP). 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.
| LFSC | BBP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.45 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.32 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.64 | 4.87 | -1.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.14 | 15.32 | -5.18 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LFSC | BBP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.28 | 1.91 | +0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.40 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.42 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.07 | 0.39 | +0.68 |
Drawdowns
LFSC vs. BBP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum BBP drawdown of -44.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and BBP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFSC | BBP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.74% | -44.32% | +14.58% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.25% | -9.28% | -6.97% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -26.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -38.28% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -44.32% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.57% | -6.47% | +2.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.82% | -12.02% | +4.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.82% | 2.95% | +2.87% |
Volatility
LFSC vs. BBP - Volatility Comparison
F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (BBP) have volatilities of 7.43% and 7.61%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFSC | BBP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.43% | 7.61% | -0.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.52% | 18.43% | +0.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.01% | 23.76% | +2.25% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.90% | 26.35% | +2.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.90% | 27.40% | +1.50% |
LFSC vs. BBP - Expense Ratio Comparison
LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than BBP's 0.79% expense ratio.
Dividends
LFSC vs. BBP - Dividend Comparison
Neither LFSC nor BBP has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BBP Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.18% | 0.00% | 1.29% |
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
LFSC and BBP 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.
BBP has higher volatility (7.61%) compared to LFSC (7.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs BBP's -44.32%.
On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 45.02% for BBP. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 45.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BBP.
LFSC and BBP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Virtus Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.79% for BBP.
LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.91), 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.
Find the right allocation for LFSC and BBP
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer