LFSC vs. CPHY

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and CPHY (F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments, while CPHY is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Nasdaq Compoundr U.S. High Yield Bond Index. LFSC is actively managed, while CPHY is passively managed. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CPHY.

Performance

LFSC vs. CPHY - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 22.64% return, which is significantly higher than CPHY's 0.82% return.

LFSC

• 1D: -2.82%
• 1M: 11.09%
• 6M: 24.03%
• YTD: 22.64%
• 1Y: 78.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CPHY

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.09%
• 6M: 0.29%
• YTD: 0.82%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. CPHY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	22.64%	41.60%
CPHY F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF	0.82%	2.43%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and CPHY is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 12, 2025	0.53

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. CPHY — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 91
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 85

CPHY

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. CPHY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and F/m Compoundr High Yield Bond ETF (CPHY). 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	CPHY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.95	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.83	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.84	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.69	—	—

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. CPHY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than CPHY's maximum drawdown of -2.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and CPHY.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	CPHY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-2.51%	-27.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.21%	-0.17%	-5.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.34%	-0.54%	-6.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.73%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	CPHY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.88%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.00%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.66%	3.48%	+23.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.76%	3.48%	+25.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.76%	3.48%	+25.28%

LFSC vs. CPHY - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than CPHY's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. CPHY - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFSC nor CPHY has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and CPHY in my portfolio?

LFSC and CPHY have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or CPHY?

On fees, CPHY is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or CPHY?

CPHY is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

LFSC and CPHY have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between LFSC and CPHY?

LFSC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while CPHY is High Yield Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.35% for CPHY.