LFSC vs. ZTEN

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and ZTEN (F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m, while ZTEN is a Long-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. LFSC is actively managed, while ZTEN is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 86.46% vs 2.26% for ZTEN. Their 0.24 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for ZTEN.

Performance

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFSC achieves a 24.40% return, which is significantly higher than ZTEN's -0.89% return.

LFSC

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: 27.81%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 1Y: 86.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 40.92%

ZTEN

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: -1.69%
• 6M: -1.01%
• YTD: -0.89%
• 1Y: 2.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.19%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$207.45K	$324.22K	$187.45K
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	$44.87K	$43.88K	$108.71K

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-1.20%
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	-0.89%	9.15%	0.29%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and ZTEN is 0.36, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.24

The correlation between LFSC and ZTEN shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (all time) to 0.36 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. ZTEN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 94
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 94
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 91

ZTEN

ZTEN Risk / Return Rank: 28
ZTEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ZTEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
ZTEN Omega Ratio Rank: 25
ZTEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
ZTEN Martin Ratio Rank: 30

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) and F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN). 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	ZTEN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	0.65	+2.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.10	0.96	+3.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.11	+0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.45	0.98	+4.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.35	2.72	+12.63

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is higher than the ZTEN Sharpe Ratio of 0.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and ZTEN, 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. ZTEN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than ZTEN's maximum drawdown of -3.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and ZTEN.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	ZTEN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-3.43%	-26.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-3.32%	-12.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.85%	-2.50%	-1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.26%	-0.86%	-6.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.76%	1.19%	+4.57%

Volatility

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 9.04% compared to F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) at 1.35%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZTEN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	ZTEN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.04%	1.35%	+7.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.86%	4.01%	+15.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.28%	4.96%	+22.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.89%	5.72%	+23.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.89%	5.72%	+23.17%

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFSC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than ZTEN's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFSC vs. ZTEN - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZTEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.58%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	5.13%	5.16%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and ZTEN in my portfolio?

LFSC and ZTEN have a correlation of 0.36, 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 ZTEN?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to ZTEN (1.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs ZTEN's -3.43%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or ZTEN?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs 2.26% for ZTEN. On fees, ZTEN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or ZTEN?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs 2.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or ZTEN?

ZTEN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

ZTEN has the higher dividend yield at 5.13%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and ZTEN?

LFSC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while ZTEN is Long-Term Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for LFSC and 0.15% for ZTEN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 0.65), 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.