LFSC vs. UNHW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and UNHW (Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments, while UNHW is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill Investments. Both are actively managed. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for UNHW.

Performance

LFSC vs. UNHW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 3.84% return, which is significantly lower than UNHW's 15.08% return.

LFSC

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: -1.63%
• YTD: 3.84%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 58.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UNHW

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 2.06%
• YTD: 15.08%
• 6M: 11.60%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LFSC vs. UNHW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	-2.09%
UNHW Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF	15.08%	-3.02%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and UNHW is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2025	0.14

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. UNHW — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 67
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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. UNHW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF (UNHW). 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	UNHW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.14	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LFSC	UNHW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.50	+0.57

Drawdowns

LFSC vs. UNHW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum UNHW drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and UNHW.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	UNHW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-32.28%	+2.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-7.06%	+3.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.82%	-12.48%	+4.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.82%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	UNHW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.43%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.52%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.01%	49.81%	-23.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.90%	49.81%	-20.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.90%	49.81%	-20.91%

LFSC vs. UNHW - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than UNHW's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. UNHW - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UNHW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 17.33%.

Position	TTM	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%
UNHW Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF	17.33%	2.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and UNHW in my portfolio?

LFSC and UNHW have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or UNHW?

On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or UNHW?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for UNHW.

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

UNHW has the higher dividend yield at 17.33%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and UNHW?

LFSC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while UNHW is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and Roundhill Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.99% for UNHW.