LFSC vs. PBPH
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 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for PBPH.
Performance
LFSC vs. PBPH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 3.84% return, which is significantly higher than PBPH's -1.13% return.
LFSC
- 1D
- 1.08%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- 3.84%
- 6M
- 1.68%
- 1Y
- 58.79%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PBPH
- 1D
- 0.58%
- 1M
- 0.07%
- YTD
- -1.13%
- 6M
- -0.02%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LFSC vs. PBPH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 3.84% | -1.21% |
PBPH Portfolio Building Block World Pharma and Biotech Index ETF | -1.13% | 0.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFSC and PBPH is 0.49, 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 26, 2025 | 0.49 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LFSC vs. PBPH — Risk / Return Rank
LFSC
PBPH
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.
| LFSC | PBPH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.64 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn 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. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LFSC | PBPH | 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 | -0.04 | +1.12 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFSC | PBPH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.74% | -11.10% | -18.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.25% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.57% | -8.69% | +5.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.82% | -4.23% | -3.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.82% | — | — |
Volatility
LFSC vs. PBPH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFSC | PBPH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.43% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.52% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.01% | 16.78% | +9.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.90% | 16.78% | +12.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.90% | 16.78% | +12.12% |
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
LFSC and PBPH have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
PBPH is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.
PBPH has the higher dividend yield at 0.09%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.
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.
Find the right allocation for LFSC and PBPH
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer