LFSC vs. SBIO

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and SBIO (ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while SBIO is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 86.46% vs 93.80% for SBIO. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for SBIO.

Performance

LFSC vs. SBIO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LFSC having a 24.40% return and SBIO slightly lower at 23.71%.

LFSC

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: 27.81%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 1Y: 86.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 40.92%

SBIO

• 1D: -2.82%
• 1M: -2.37%
• 6M: 23.63%
• YTD: 23.71%
• 1Y: 93.80%
• 3Y*: 27.24%
• 5Y*: 8.36%
• 10Y*: 10.60%
• ALL TIME*: 9.13%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$207.45K	$324.22K	$187.45K
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	$1.96M	$3.19M	$2.15M

LFSC vs. SBIO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-6.51%
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	23.71%	55.07%	-10.95%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and SBIO is 0.84, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.84

The correlation between LFSC and SBIO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. SBIO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 94
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 94
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 91

SBIO

SBIO Risk / Return Rank: 95
SBIO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
SBIO Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
SBIO Omega Ratio Rank: 92
SBIO Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
SBIO Martin Ratio Rank: 95

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LFSC vs. SBIO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO). 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	SBIO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	3.05	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.10	3.83	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.45	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.45	7.47	-2.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.35	19.68	-4.33

LFSC vs. SBIO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is comparable to the SBIO Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and SBIO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. SBIO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum SBIO drawdown of -63.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and SBIO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	SBIO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-63.06%	+33.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-12.66%	-3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-42.44%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-52.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.85%	-8.09%	+4.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.26%	-28.14%	+20.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.76%	4.80%	+0.96%

Volatility

LFSC vs. SBIO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) is 9.04%, while ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) has a volatility of 10.05%. This indicates that LFSC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SBIO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	SBIO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.04%	10.05%	-1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.86%	24.16%	-4.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.28%	31.04%	-3.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.89%	33.86%	-4.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.89%	33.18%	-4.29%

LFSC vs. SBIO - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than SBIO's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. SBIO - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFSC nor SBIO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	0.00%	0.00%	3.55%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%	2.79%	1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and SBIO in my portfolio?

LFSC and SBIO have a correlation of 0.84, 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 SBIO?

SBIO has higher volatility (10.05%) compared to LFSC (9.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs SBIO's -63.06%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or SBIO?

On 1-year performance, SBIO leads with 93.80% vs 86.46% for LFSC. On fees, SBIO is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 9.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or SBIO?

Over the 1-year period, SBIO has performed better with a 93.80% return vs 86.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or SBIO?

SBIO is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

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

What is the main difference between LFSC and SBIO?

They also come from different issuers: F/m and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.50% for SBIO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 3.05), 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.