LFSC vs. BMED

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Future Health ETF (BMED).

LFSC and BMED are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LFSC is an actively managed fund by F/m Investments. It was launched on Oct 30, 2024. BMED is an actively managed fund by BlackRock. It was launched on Sep 29, 2020.

Performance

LFSC vs. BMED - Performance Comparison

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

LFSC vs. BMED - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	-4.45%	56.54%	-6.02%
BMED Future Health ETF	-4.26%	21.79%	-2.28%

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with LFSC having a -4.45% return and BMED slightly higher at -4.26%.

LFSC

• 1D: 6.16%
• 1M: -3.82%
• YTD: -4.45%
• 6M: 17.66%
• 1Y: 55.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BMED

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: -5.51%
• YTD: -4.26%
• 6M: 5.68%
• 1Y: 22.21%
• 3Y*: 7.39%
• 5Y*: 0.40%
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. BMED - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than BMED's 0.85% expense ratio.

BMED

Future Health ETF

LFSC

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. BMED — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 86
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 82
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 79

BMED

BMED Risk / Return Rank: 61
BMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
BMED Omega Ratio Rank: 61
BMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BMED Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

LFSC vs. BMED - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Future Health ETF (BMED). 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	BMED	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.23	+0.70
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	1.75	+0.89
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.24	+0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	1.60	+1.60
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.96	5.45	+3.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LFSC vs. BMED - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is higher than the BMED Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and BMED, 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

	LFSC	BMED	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.93	1.23	+0.70
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.02	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.94	0.13	+0.81

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and BMED is 0.76, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

LFSC vs. BMED - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFSC nor BMED has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
BMED Future Health ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. BMED - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum BMED drawdown of -36.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and BMED.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	BMED	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-36.44%	+6.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-12.31%	-3.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.08%	-10.30%	-0.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.25%	-19.30%	+11.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.80%	3.62%	+2.18%

Volatility

LFSC vs. BMED - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 10.35% compared to Future Health ETF (BMED) at 5.98%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BMED based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	BMED	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.35%	5.98%	+4.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.97%	10.87%	+9.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.24%	18.24%	+11.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.31%	17.42%	+11.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.31%	17.81%	+11.50%