LFSC vs. XLV

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and XLV (State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LFSC is actively managed, while XLV is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 75.19% vs 15.69% for XLV. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLV.

Performance

LFSC vs. XLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 15.76% return, which is significantly higher than XLV's -2.23% return.

LFSC

• 1D: 2.09%
• 1M: 10.64%
• YTD: 15.76%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 75.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XLV

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 0.56%
• YTD: -2.23%
• 6M: -2.55%
• 1Y: 15.69%
• 3Y*: 6.13%
• 5Y*: 5.50%
• 10Y*: 9.86%

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

LFSC vs. XLV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	15.76%	56.54%	-6.51%
XLV State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF	-2.23%	14.50%	-6.70%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and XLV is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.48

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. XLV — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 83
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 72

XLV

XLV Risk / Return Rank: 30
XLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
XLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
XLV Omega Ratio Rank: 28
XLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
XLV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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. XLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV). 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	XLV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	1.05	+1.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	1.67	+2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.19	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.65	1.51	+3.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.98	3.56	+9.42

LFSC vs. XLV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is higher than the XLV Sharpe Ratio of 1.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and XLV, 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. XLV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, smaller than the maximum XLV drawdown of -39.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and XLV.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	XLV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-39.17%	+9.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-10.47%	-5.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.11%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-5.53%	+5.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.60%	-7.12%	-0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.81%	4.42%	+1.39%

Volatility

LFSC vs. XLV - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV) at 5.14%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	XLV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.93%	5.14%	+2.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.96%	10.58%	+8.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.61%	15.06%	+11.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.93%	14.76%	+14.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.93%	16.59%	+12.34%

LFSC vs. XLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than XLV's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. XLV - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%
XLV State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF	2.11%	1.60%	1.67%	1.59%	1.47%	1.33%	1.49%	2.17%	1.57%	1.47%	1.60%	1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and XLV in my portfolio?

LFSC and XLV have a correlation of 0.44, 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 XLV?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.93%) compared to XLV (5.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs XLV's -39.17%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or XLV?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.19% vs 15.69% for XLV. On fees, XLV is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, XLV has been the lower-risk option at 5.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or XLV?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.19% return vs 15.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or XLV?

XLV is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

XLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.11%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and XLV?

They also come from different issuers: F/m Investments and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.08% for XLV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 1.05), 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.