LFSC vs. GERM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and GERM (Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while GERM is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 58.79% vs 0.00% for GERM. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for GERM.

Performance

LFSC vs. GERM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

LFSC

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: -1.63%
• YTD: 3.84%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 58.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GERM

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

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

LFSC vs. GERM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%
GERM Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. GERM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 67
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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. GERM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM). 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	GERM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.14	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LFSC	GERM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	—	—

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. GERM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than GERM's maximum drawdown of 0.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and GERM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	GERM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	0.00%	-29.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	0.00%	-16.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	0.00%	-3.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.82%	0.00%	-7.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.82%	0.00%	+5.82%

Volatility

LFSC vs. GERM - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 7.43% compared to Amplify Treatments, Testing and Advancements ETF (GERM) at 0.00%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GERM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	GERM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.43%	0.00%	+7.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.52%	0.00%	+18.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.01%	0.00%	+26.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.90%	0.00%	+28.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.90%	0.00%	+28.90%

LFSC vs. GERM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than GERM's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. GERM - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFSC nor GERM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is riskier, LFSC or GERM?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to GERM (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs GERM's 0.00%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or GERM?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 0.00% for GERM. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, GERM has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or GERM?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 0.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or GERM?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for GERM.

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

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

What is the main difference between LFSC and GERM?

They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.68% for GERM.