LFSC vs. COMT
LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and COMT (iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m, while COMT is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. LFSC is actively managed, while COMT is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 88.87% vs 33.46% for COMT. Their -0.10 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.
Performance
LFSC vs. COMT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LFSC having a 29.56% return and COMT slightly lower at 29.49%.
LFSC
- 1D
- 0.78%
- 1M
- 2.27%
- 6M
- 33.88%
- YTD
- 29.56%
- 1Y
- 88.87%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 43.82%
COMT
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- 5.25%
- 6M
- 19.23%
- YTD
- 29.49%
- 1Y
- 33.46%
- 3Y*
- 10.63%
- 5Y*
- 11.85%
- 10Y*
- 8.63%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.30%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.13M | $10.19M | $11.89M | |
| $177.99K | $291.81K | $193.93K |
LFSC vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 29.56% | 56.54% | -6.51% |
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 29.49% | 6.07% | 2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFSC and COMT is -0.23, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024 | -0.10 |
The correlation between LFSC and COMT shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (1 year) to -0.10 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. COMT — Risk / Return Rank
LFSC
COMT
LFSC vs. COMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.
| LFSC | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.99 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | 1.27 | +0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.50 | 1.91 | +3.59 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.48 | 5.84 | +9.64 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LFSC vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum COMT drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and COMT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFSC | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.74% | -51.89% | +22.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.25% | -17.57% | +1.32% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -17.57% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -29.00% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -39.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -11.75% | +11.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.22% | -23.89% | +16.67% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.76% | 5.75% | +0.01% |
Volatility
LFSC vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison
F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 9.41% compared to iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) at 5.13%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFSC | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.41% | 5.13% | +4.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.97% | 18.95% | +1.02% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.35% | 21.64% | +5.71% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.88% | 21.09% | +7.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.88% | 18.86% | +10.02% |
LFSC vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison
LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.
Dividends
LFSC vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison
LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while COMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.98%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 5.98% | 7.74% | 4.90% | 5.19% | 29.79% | 17.79% | 0.36% | 2.61% | 11.65% | 5.16% | 0.52% | 1.44% |
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 COMT have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LFSC has higher volatility (9.41%) compared to COMT (5.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs COMT's -51.89%.
On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 88.87% vs 33.46% for COMT. On fees, COMT is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, COMT has been the lower-risk option at 5.13%. 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 88.87% return vs 33.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
COMT is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.
COMT has the higher dividend yield at 5.98%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.
LFSC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while COMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: F/m and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.48% for COMT.
LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.27 vs 1.55), 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 COMT
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