LFSC vs. SPAQ
LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and SPAQ (Horizon Kinetics SPAC Active ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 58.79% vs 4.98% for SPAQ. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for SPAQ.
Performance
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 3.84% return, which is significantly higher than SPAQ's 2.81% return.
LFSC
- 1D
- 1.08%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- 3.84%
- 6M
- 1.68%
- 1Y
- 58.79%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SPAQ
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 1.51%
- YTD
- 2.81%
- 6M
- 1.64%
- 1Y
- 4.98%
- 3Y*
- 5.87%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 3.84% | 56.54% | -6.02% |
SPAQ Horizon Kinetics SPAC Active ETF | 2.81% | 7.35% | 0.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFSC and SPAQ is 0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024 | 0.01 |
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. SPAQ — Risk / Return Rank
LFSC
SPAQ
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Horizon Kinetics SPAC Active ETF (SPAQ). 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 | SPAQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.13 | +0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.64 | 0.94 | +2.69 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.14 | 3.39 | +6.75 |
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 | SPAQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.28 | 0.57 | +1.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.07 | 0.86 | +0.21 |
Drawdowns
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than SPAQ's maximum drawdown of -5.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and SPAQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFSC | SPAQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.74% | -5.30% | -24.44% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.25% | -5.30% | -10.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -5.30% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.57% | -0.01% | -3.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.82% | -0.54% | -7.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.82% | 1.47% | +4.35% |
Volatility
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Volatility Comparison
F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 7.43% compared to Horizon Kinetics SPAC Active ETF (SPAQ) at 1.95%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SPAQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFSC | SPAQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.43% | 1.95% | +5.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.52% | 5.01% | +13.51% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.01% | 8.80% | +17.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.90% | 7.00% | +21.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.90% | 7.00% | +21.90% |
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than SPAQ's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
LFSC vs. SPAQ - Dividend Comparison
LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SPAQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.23%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SPAQ Horizon Kinetics SPAC Active ETF | 16.23% | 16.69% | 3.00% | 2.60% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LFSC and SPAQ have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to SPAQ (1.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs SPAQ's -5.30%.
On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 4.98% for SPAQ. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, SPAQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 4.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for SPAQ.
SPAQ has the higher dividend yield at 16.23%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.
They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Horizon. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.85% for SPAQ.
LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 0.57), 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.
Find the right allocation for LFSC and SPAQ
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