LFSC vs. HEAL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and HEAL (Global X HealthTech ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while HEAL is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 75.19% vs -19.29% for HEAL. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for HEAL.

Performance

LFSC vs. HEAL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 15.76% return, which is significantly higher than HEAL's -11.69% return.

LFSC

• 1D: 2.09%
• 1M: 10.64%
• YTD: 15.76%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 75.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HEAL

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: 3.99%
• YTD: -11.69%
• 6M: -14.62%
• 1Y: -19.29%
• 3Y*: -8.58%
• 5Y*: -14.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. HEAL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	15.76%	56.54%	-6.51%
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	-11.69%	-0.62%	2.82%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and HEAL is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.58

The correlation between LFSC and HEAL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. HEAL — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 83
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 72

HEAL

HEAL Risk / Return Rank: 3
HEAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
HEAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
HEAL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
HEAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
HEAL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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. HEAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL). 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	HEAL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	-0.87	+3.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	-1.17	+4.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	0.87	+0.58
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.65	-0.63	+5.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.98	-1.21	+14.20

LFSC vs. HEAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is higher than the HEAL Sharpe Ratio of -0.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and HEAL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. HEAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum HEAL drawdown of -65.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and HEAL.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	HEAL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-65.76%	+36.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-30.71%	+14.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-35.78%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-60.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-61.88%	+61.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.60%	-43.19%	+35.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.81%	15.92%	-10.11%

Volatility

LFSC vs. HEAL - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) at 7.15%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HEAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	HEAL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.93%	7.15%	+0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.96%	16.56%	+2.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.61%	22.42%	+4.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.93%	26.46%	+2.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.93%	26.28%	+2.65%

LFSC vs. HEAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than HEAL's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. HEAL - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HEAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	0.37%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and HEAL in my portfolio?

LFSC and HEAL have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFSC or HEAL?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.93%) compared to HEAL (7.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs HEAL's -65.76%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or HEAL?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.19% vs -19.29% for HEAL. On fees, HEAL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, HEAL has been the lower-risk option at 7.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or HEAL?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.19% return vs -19.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or HEAL?

HEAL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

HEAL has the higher dividend yield at 0.37%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and HEAL?

They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.50% for HEAL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs -0.87), 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.