PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LFSC vs. PPH
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

Performance

LFSC vs. PPH - Performance Comparison

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

Loading graphics...

LFSC vs. PPH - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
LFSC
F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF
-4.45%56.54%-6.02%
PPH
VanEck Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF
0.69%22.00%-5.06%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a -4.45% return, which is significantly lower than PPH's 0.69% return.


LFSC

1D
6.16%
1M
-3.82%
YTD
-4.45%
6M
17.66%
1Y
55.83%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

PPH

1D
1.94%
1M
-7.00%
YTD
0.69%
6M
15.81%
1Y
16.30%
3Y*
12.44%
5Y*
10.59%
10Y*
8.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


LFSC vs. PPH - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than PPH's 0.36% expense ratio.


Return for Risk

LFSC vs. PPH — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC
LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

PPH
PPH Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
PPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
PPH Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
PPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
PPH Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
Martin Ratio Rank
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. PPH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and VanEck Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF (PPH). 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.


LFSCPPHDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.93

0.83

+1.09

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.65

1.26

+1.39

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.16

+0.17

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.20

1.48

+1.72

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

8.96

4.08

+4.88

LFSC vs. PPH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is higher than the PPH Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and PPH, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LFSCPPHDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.93

0.83

+1.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.94

0.31

+0.64

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and PPH is 0.45, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.


Dividends

LFSC vs. PPH - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%.


TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LFSC
F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
PPH
VanEck Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF
1.77%1.78%1.98%2.09%1.55%1.62%1.66%1.77%1.97%1.92%2.43%1.93%

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. PPH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum PPH drawdown of -51.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and PPH.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


LFSCPPHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.74%

-51.45%

+21.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.25%

-10.02%

-6.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-29.70%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.08%

-7.00%

-4.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.25%

-17.38%

+9.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.80%

4.14%

+1.66%

Volatility

LFSC vs. PPH - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 10.35% compared to VanEck Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF (PPH) at 5.11%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PPH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period


LFSCPPHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.35%

5.11%

+5.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.97%

12.37%

+7.60%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

29.24%

19.67%

+9.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.31%

14.85%

+14.46%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

29.31%

16.95%

+12.36%