LFSC vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. LFSC is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 75.29% vs 59.74% for UGA. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

LFSC vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 16.36% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 64.09% return.

LFSC

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 11.21%
• YTD: 16.36%
• 6M: 9.80%
• 1Y: 75.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -12.11%
• YTD: 64.09%
• 6M: 60.42%
• 1Y: 59.74%
• 3Y*: 18.95%
• 5Y*: 22.69%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

LFSC vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	16.36%	56.54%	-6.51%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	64.09%	-2.00%	3.70%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and UGA is -0.25, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	-0.13

The correlation between LFSC and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to -0.13 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 85
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 55
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	1.73	+1.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.79	2.25	+1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.30	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.66	3.17	+1.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.00	9.39	+3.61

LFSC vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is higher than the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and UGA, 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. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-86.59%	+56.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-18.96%	+2.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-18.05%	+18.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.58%	-36.69%	+29.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.81%	6.43%	-0.62%

Volatility

LFSC vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) is 7.86%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 9.24%. This indicates that LFSC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.86%	9.24%	-1.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.94%	30.57%	-11.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.56%	35.22%	-8.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.90%	34.45%	-5.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.90%	37.22%	-8.32%

LFSC vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFSC nor UGA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and UGA in my portfolio?

LFSC and UGA have a correlation of -0.25, 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 UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (9.24%) compared to LFSC (7.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or UGA?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.29% vs 59.74% for UGA. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.29% return vs 59.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or UGA?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for UGA.

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

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

What is the main difference between LFSC and UGA?

LFSC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 1.73), 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.