LFSC vs. MDEV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and MDEV (First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while MDEV is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 58.79% vs -7.05% for MDEV. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for MDEV.

Performance

LFSC vs. MDEV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF (MDEV). 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 higher than MDEV's -11.48% return.

LFSC

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

MDEV

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.54%
• YTD: -11.48%
• 6M: -12.29%
• 1Y: -7.05%
• 3Y*: -2.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. MDEV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%
MDEV First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF	-11.48%	2.00%	-2.91%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and MDEV is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.54

The correlation between LFSC and MDEV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. MDEV — 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

MDEV

MDEV Risk / Return Rank: 5
MDEV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
MDEV Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MDEV Omega Ratio Rank: 5
MDEV Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MDEV Martin Ratio Rank: 4

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. MDEV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF (MDEV). 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	MDEV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	-0.44	+2.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	-0.53	+3.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	0.94	+0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	-0.39	+4.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.14	-0.98	+11.11
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. MDEV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is higher than the MDEV Sharpe Ratio of -0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and MDEV, 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	MDEV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	-0.44	+2.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	-0.32	+1.39

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. MDEV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum MDEV drawdown of -42.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and MDEV.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	MDEV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-42.34%	+12.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-18.13%	+1.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-33.76%	+30.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.82%	-25.65%	+17.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.82%	7.22%	-1.40%

Volatility

LFSC vs. MDEV - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 7.43% compared to First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF (MDEV) at 4.60%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MDEV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	MDEV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.43%	4.60%	+2.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.52%	11.42%	+7.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.01%	16.00%	+10.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.90%	18.98%	+9.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.90%	18.98%	+9.92%

LFSC vs. MDEV - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than MDEV's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. MDEV - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFSC nor MDEV has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and MDEV in my portfolio?

LFSC and MDEV have a correlation of 0.50, 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 MDEV?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to MDEV (4.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs MDEV's -42.34%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or MDEV?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs -7.05% for MDEV. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, MDEV has been the lower-risk option at 4.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or MDEV?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs -7.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or MDEV?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for MDEV.

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

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

What is the main difference between LFSC and MDEV?

They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.70% for MDEV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs -0.44), 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.