LFSC vs. IBRN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and IBRN (iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while IBRN is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 58.79% vs 52.08% for IBRN. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBRN.

Performance

LFSC vs. IBRN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 3.84% return, which is significantly lower than IBRN's 6.25% return.

LFSC

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

IBRN

• 1D: 1.56%
• 1M: -1.78%
• YTD: 6.25%
• 6M: 10.50%
• 1Y: 52.08%
• 3Y*: 11.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. IBRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	6.25%	28.49%	-4.67%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and IBRN is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.79

The correlation between LFSC and IBRN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. IBRN — 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

IBRN

IBRN Risk / Return Rank: 69
IBRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IBRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
IBRN Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IBRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
IBRN Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. IBRN - 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 Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). 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	IBRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	2.07	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	2.92	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.33	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	5.95	-2.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.14	14.63	-4.50
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. IBRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the IBRN Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and IBRN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LFSC	IBRN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	2.07	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.39	+0.69

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. IBRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum IBRN drawdown of -35.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and IBRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	IBRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-35.38%	+5.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-8.80%	-7.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-4.82%	+1.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.82%	-9.83%	+2.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.82%	3.57%	+2.25%

Volatility

LFSC vs. IBRN - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) have volatilities of 7.43% and 7.69%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	IBRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.43%	7.69%	-0.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.52%	19.08%	-0.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.01%	25.36%	+0.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.90%	25.32%	+3.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.90%	25.32%	+3.58%

LFSC vs. IBRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than IBRN's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. IBRN - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBRN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.93%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	0.93%	0.99%	0.40%	0.06%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and IBRN in my portfolio?

LFSC and IBRN have a correlation of 0.78, 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 IBRN?

IBRN has higher volatility (7.69%) compared to LFSC (7.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs IBRN's -35.38%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or IBRN?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 52.08% for IBRN. On fees, IBRN is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or IBRN?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 52.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or IBRN?

IBRN is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

IBRN has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and IBRN?

They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.47% for IBRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.07), 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.