LFSC vs. GDOC

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC).

LFSC and GDOC 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. GDOC is an actively managed fund by Goldman Sachs. It was launched on Nov 9, 2021.

Performance

LFSC vs. GDOC - Performance Comparison

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

LFSC vs. GDOC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	-4.62%	56.54%	-6.02%
GDOC Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF	-7.11%	10.74%	-5.33%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a -4.62% return, which is significantly higher than GDOC's -7.11% return.

LFSC

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -3.88%
• YTD: -4.62%
• 6M: 18.37%
• 1Y: 59.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GDOC

• 1D: 1.11%
• 1M: -3.59%
• YTD: -7.11%
• 6M: 0.33%
• 1Y: 4.43%
• 3Y*: 1.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. GDOC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than GDOC's 0.75% expense ratio.

GDOC

Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF

LFSC

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. GDOC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 87
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 78

GDOC

GDOC Risk / Return Rank: 16
GDOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
GDOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
GDOC Omega Ratio Rank: 17
GDOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
GDOC Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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. GDOC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC). 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	GDOC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	0.24	+1.82
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.79	0.46	+2.33
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.06	+0.29
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.42	0.18	+3.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.51	0.55	+8.96
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. GDOC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is higher than the GDOC Sharpe Ratio of 0.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and GDOC, 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	GDOC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	0.24	+1.82
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.94	-0.19	+1.13

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and GDOC is 0.66, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

LFSC vs. GDOC - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GDOC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GDOC Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF	0.34%	0.32%	0.02%	0.55%	0.00%

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. GDOC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, roughly equal to the maximum GDOC drawdown of -31.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and GDOC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	GDOC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-31.01%	+1.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-14.57%	-1.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.25%	-14.93%	+3.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.26%	-15.90%	+7.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.84%	4.86%	+0.98%

Volatility

LFSC vs. GDOC - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 10.08% compared to Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC) at 6.15%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GDOC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	GDOC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.08%	6.15%	+3.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.95%	11.23%	+8.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.12%	18.66%	+10.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.27%	18.82%	+10.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.27%	18.82%	+10.45%