LFSC vs. ZTRE

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) and ZTRE (F/M 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m, while ZTRE is a Short-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 3-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. LFSC is actively managed, while ZTRE is passively managed. Over the past year, LFSC returned 86.46% vs 3.03% for ZTRE. Their 0.18 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LFSC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for ZTRE.

Performance

LFSC vs. ZTRE - 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 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTRE). 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 ZTRE's 0.80% return.

LFSC

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

ZTRE

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.06%
• 6M: 0.41%
• YTD: 0.80%
• 1Y: 3.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.76%

*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
ZTRE F/M 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	$361.74K	$257.68K	$173.89K

LFSC vs. ZTRE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-1.20%
ZTRE F/M 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	0.80%	6.60%	0.32%

Correlation

The correlation between LFSC and ZTRE is 0.27, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.18

Return for Risk

LFSC vs. ZTRE — 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

ZTRE

ZTRE Risk / Return Rank: 79
ZTRE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
ZTRE Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
ZTRE Omega Ratio Rank: 84
ZTRE Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
ZTRE Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. ZTRE - 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 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTRE). 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	ZTRE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	1.86	+1.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.10	2.80	+1.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.36	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.45	2.47	+2.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.35	9.68	+5.66

LFSC vs. ZTRE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFSC Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is higher than the ZTRE Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFSC and ZTRE, 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. ZTRE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFSC drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, which is greater than ZTRE's maximum drawdown of -1.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFSC and ZTRE.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFSC	ZTRE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.74%	-1.45%	-28.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.25%	-1.45%	-14.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.85%	-0.10%	-3.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.26%	-0.21%	-7.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.76%	0.37%	+5.39%

Volatility

LFSC vs. ZTRE - Volatility Comparison

F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a higher volatility of 9.04% compared to F/M 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTRE) at 0.65%. This indicates that LFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZTRE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFSC	ZTRE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.04%	0.65%	+8.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.86%	1.58%	+18.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.28%	1.93%	+25.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.89%	2.10%	+26.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.89%	2.10%	+26.79%

LFSC vs. ZTRE - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LFSC vs. ZTRE - Dividend Comparison

LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZTRE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.56%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZTRE F/M 3-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	4.23%	4.37%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFSC and ZTRE in my portfolio?

LFSC and ZTRE have a correlation of 0.27, 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 ZTRE?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to ZTRE (0.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFSC dropped -29.74% vs ZTRE's -1.45%.

Which ETF is better, LFSC or ZTRE?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs 3.03% for ZTRE. On fees, ZTRE is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTRE has been the lower-risk option at 0.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFSC or ZTRE?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs 3.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFSC or ZTRE?

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

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

ZTRE has the higher dividend yield at 4.23%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between LFSC and ZTRE?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 1.86), 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.