LFSC vs. PBPH

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and PBPH (Portfolio Building Block World Pharma and Biotech Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while PBPH is passively managed. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for PBPH.

Performance

LFSC vs. PBPH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Portfolio Building Block World Pharma and Biotech Index ETF (PBPH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 18.23% return, which is significantly higher than PBPH's 3.39% return.

LFSC

• 1D: 1.61%
• 1M: 13.00%
• YTD: 18.23%
• 6M: 10.21%
• 1Y: 74.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBPH

• 1D: 0.74%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: 3.39%
• 6M: 2.49%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. PBPH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	18.23%	0.55%
PBPH Portfolio Building Block World Pharma and Biotech Index ETF	3.39%	0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and PBPH is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 25, 2025	0.47

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. PBPH — 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: 92
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

PBPH

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. PBPH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Portfolio Building Block World Pharma and Biotech Index ETF (PBPH). 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	PBPH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.83	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.76	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.62	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	—	—

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. PBPH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than PBPH's maximum drawdown of -11.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and PBPH.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	PBPH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-11.10%	-18.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.51%	+4.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.56%	-4.36%	-3.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.81%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	PBPH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.85%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.83%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.60%	17.04%	+9.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.89%	17.04%	+11.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.89%	17.04%	+11.85%

LFSC vs. PBPH - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than PBPH's 0.13% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. PBPH - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PBPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%.

Position	TTM	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%
PBPH Portfolio Building Block World Pharma and Biotech Index ETF	0.09%	0.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and PBPH in my portfolio?

LFSC and PBPH have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or PBPH?

On fees, PBPH is cheaper at 0.13% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or PBPH?

PBPH is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

PBPH has the higher dividend yield at 0.09%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and PBPH?

They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Portfolio Building Block. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.13% for PBPH.