LFSC vs. TRUH
LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and TRUH (VanEck Healthcare TruSector ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.38 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for TRUH.
Performance
LFSC vs. TRUH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
LFSC
- 1D
- -2.42%
- 1M
- -1.28%
- 6M
- 27.81%
- YTD
- 24.40%
- 1Y
- 86.46%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 40.92%
TRUH
- 1D
- -0.52%
- 1M
- -0.28%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $207.45K | $324.22K | $187.45K | |
| $23.58K | $32.63K | $24.16K |
LFSC vs. TRUH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 30.44% |
TRUH VanEck Healthcare TruSector ETF | 10.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between LFSC and TRUH is 0.38, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2026 | 0.38 |
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. TRUH — Risk / Return Rank
LFSC
TRUH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
LFSC vs. TRUH - 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 Healthcare TruSector ETF (TRUH). 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 | TRUH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.45 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.35 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LFSC vs. TRUH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than TRUH's maximum drawdown of -4.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and TRUH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LFSC | TRUH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.74% | -4.51% | -25.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.25% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.85% | -2.75% | -1.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.26% | -1.64% | -5.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.76% | — | — |
Volatility
LFSC vs. TRUH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LFSC | TRUH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.04% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.86% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.28% | 17.62% | +9.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.89% | 17.62% | +11.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.89% | 17.62% | +11.27% |
LFSC vs. TRUH - Expense Ratio Comparison
LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than TRUH's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
LFSC vs. TRUH - Dividend Comparison
LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TRUH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%.
| Position | TTM |
|---|---|
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF | 0.00% |
TRUH VanEck Healthcare TruSector ETF | 0.30% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LFSC and TRUH have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, TRUH is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
TRUH is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.
TRUH has the higher dividend yield at 0.30%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.
They also come from different issuers: F/m and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.10% for TRUH.
Find the right allocation for LFSC and TRUH
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