LGHT vs. BBC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LGHT (Langar Global HealthTech ETF) and BBC (Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LGHT is actively managed, while BBC is passively managed. Over the past year, LGHT returned -13.99% vs 131.04% for BBC. Their 0.45 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LGHT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for BBC.

Performance

LGHT vs. BBC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF (BBC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGHT achieves a -13.35% return, which is significantly lower than BBC's 26.39% return.

LGHT

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -3.54%
• 6M: -12.52%
• YTD: -13.35%
• 1Y: -13.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -5.99%

BBC

• 1D: -3.05%
• 1M: -7.68%
• 6M: 19.33%
• YTD: 26.39%
• 1Y: 131.04%
• 3Y*: 28.17%
• 5Y*: 2.62%
• 10Y*: 9.79%
• ALL TIME*: 6.26%

*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)
BBC Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF	$567.19K	$1.45M	$1.29M
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	$39.43K	$23.15K	$16.97K

LGHT vs. BBC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	-13.35%	-1.66%	0.23%
BBC Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF	26.39%	63.77%	-6.85%

Correlation

The correlation between LGHT and BBC is 0.33, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 10, 2024	0.45

The correlation between LGHT and BBC shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (1 year) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LGHT vs. BBC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGHT	BBC
Healthcare	90.0%	100.0%
Technology	8.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.8%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LGHT vs. BBC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGHT

LGHT Risk / Return Rank: 4
LGHT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
LGHT Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
LGHT Omega Ratio Rank: 4
LGHT Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
LGHT Martin Ratio Rank: 4

BBC

BBC Risk / Return Rank: 96
BBC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
BBC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BBC Omega Ratio Rank: 93
BBC Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
BBC Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

LGHT vs. BBC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF (BBC). 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.

	LGHT	BBC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.71	3.55	-4.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.90	4.01	-4.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	1.47	-0.58
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.56	8.58	-9.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.05	23.49	-24.54

LGHT vs. BBC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGHT Sharpe Ratio is -0.71, which is lower than the BBC Sharpe Ratio of 3.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGHT and BBC, 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

LGHT vs. BBC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGHT drawdown since its inception was -28.60%, smaller than the maximum BBC drawdown of -76.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGHT and BBC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGHT	BBC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.60%	-76.85%	+48.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.57%	-15.10%	-10.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-54.45%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-70.92%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-76.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.09%	-18.87%	-3.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.57%	-36.88%	+28.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.61%	5.51%	+8.10%

Volatility

LGHT vs. BBC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) is 8.36%, while Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF (BBC) has a volatility of 10.52%. This indicates that LGHT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BBC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGHT	BBC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	10.52%	-2.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.46%	26.31%	-9.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.43%	36.55%	-16.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.42%	39.60%	-20.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.42%	37.72%	-18.30%

LGHT vs. BBC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGHT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BBC's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGHT vs. BBC - Dividend Comparison

LGHT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BBC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BBC Virtus LifeSci Biotech Clinical Trials ETF	1.34%	1.70%	1.00%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.09%	0.00%	0.51%
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech 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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGHT and BBC in my portfolio?

LGHT and BBC have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGHT or BBC?

BBC has higher volatility (10.52%) compared to LGHT (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGHT dropped -28.60% vs BBC's -76.85%.

Which ETF is better, LGHT or BBC?

On 1-year performance, BBC leads with 131.04% vs -13.99% for LGHT. On fees, BBC is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, LGHT has been the lower-risk option at 8.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGHT or BBC?

Over the 1-year period, BBC has performed better with a 131.04% return vs -13.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGHT or BBC?

BBC is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for LGHT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LGHT or BBC?

BBC has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 0.00% for LGHT.

What is the main difference between LGHT and BBC?

They also come from different issuers: Langar and Virtus. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for LGHT and 0.79% for BBC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.55 vs -0.71), 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.