LGHT vs. BBH

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

LGHT (Langar Global HealthTech ETF) and BBH (VanEck Biotech ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LGHT is actively managed, while BBH is passively managed. Over the past year, LGHT returned -12.37% vs 26.57% for BBH. Their 0.62 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LGHT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BBH.

Performance

LGHT vs. BBH - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGHT achieves a -10.75% return, which is significantly lower than BBH's 9.92% return.

LGHT

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -0.65%
• 6M: -6.77%
• YTD: -10.75%
• 1Y: -12.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -4.87%

BBH

• 1D: 1.84%
• 1M: -1.56%
• 6M: 6.69%
• YTD: 9.92%
• 1Y: 26.57%
• 3Y*: 9.91%
• 5Y*: -0.53%
• 10Y*: 6.32%
• ALL TIME*: 10.74%

*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)
BBH VanEck Biotech ETF	$1.28M	$1.12M	$989.75K
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	$40.81K	$22.59K	$17.37K

LGHT vs. BBH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	-10.75%	-1.66%	0.23%
BBH VanEck Biotech ETF	9.92%	21.18%	-7.12%

Correlation

The correlation between LGHT and BBH is 0.60, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 10, 2024	0.62

The correlation between LGHT and BBH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGHT vs. BBH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

LGHT vs. BBH — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGHT

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

BBH

BBH Risk / Return Rank: 52
BBH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
BBH Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
BBH Omega Ratio Rank: 46
BBH Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
BBH Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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. BBH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and VanEck Biotech ETF (BBH). 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	BBH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.61	1.37	-1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.75	2.05	-2.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.91	1.24	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.49	2.53	-3.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.91	6.01	-6.92

LGHT vs. BBH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGHT Sharpe Ratio is -0.61, which is lower than the BBH Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGHT and BBH, 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. BBH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGHT drawdown since its inception was -28.60%, smaller than the maximum BBH drawdown of -72.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGHT and BBH.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGHT	BBH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.60%	-72.70%	+44.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.57%	-10.55%	-15.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.74%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-39.86%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.76%	-3.48%	-16.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.60%	-20.66%	+12.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.69%	4.46%	+9.23%

Volatility

LGHT vs. BBH - Volatility Comparison

Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) has a higher volatility of 8.02% compared to VanEck Biotech ETF (BBH) at 5.65%. This indicates that LGHT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BBH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGHT	BBH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.02%	5.65%	+2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.64%	14.89%	+1.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.28%	19.53%	+0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.45%	21.51%	-2.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.45%	22.11%	-2.66%

LGHT vs. BBH - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGHT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BBH's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGHT vs. BBH - Dividend Comparison

LGHT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BBH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.46%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BBH VanEck Biotech ETF	0.46%	0.51%	0.80%	0.43%	0.47%	0.21%	0.36%	0.34%	0.50%	0.55%	0.30%	0.27%
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 BBH in my portfolio?

LGHT and BBH have a correlation of 0.60, 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 BBH?

LGHT has higher volatility (8.02%) compared to BBH (5.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGHT dropped -28.60% vs BBH's -72.70%.

Which ETF is better, LGHT or BBH?

On 1-year performance, BBH leads with 26.57% vs -12.37% for LGHT. On fees, BBH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, BBH has been the lower-risk option at 5.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGHT or BBH?

Over the 1-year period, BBH has performed better with a 26.57% return vs -12.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGHT or BBH?

BBH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for LGHT.

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

BBH has the higher dividend yield at 0.46%, compared with 0.00% for LGHT.

What is the main difference between LGHT and BBH?

They also come from different issuers: Langar and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for LGHT and 0.35% for BBH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs -0.61), 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.