LGHT vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LGHT (Langar Global HealthTech ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LGHT returned -13.99% vs 86.46% for LFSC. Their 0.52 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LGHT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

LGHT vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). 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 LFSC's 24.40% return.

LGHT

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

LFSC

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

*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
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	$39.43K	$23.15K	$16.97K

LGHT vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	-13.35%	-1.66%	-2.37%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between LGHT and LFSC is 0.45, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.52

The correlation between LGHT and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LGHT vs. LFSC — 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

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

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. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC). 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	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.71	3.25	-3.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.90	4.10	-5.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	1.49	-0.60
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.56	5.45	-6.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.05	15.35	-16.40

LGHT vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGHT Sharpe Ratio is -0.71, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGHT and LFSC, 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. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGHT drawdown since its inception was -28.60%, roughly equal to the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGHT and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGHT	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.60%	-29.74%	+1.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.57%	-16.25%	-9.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.09%	-3.85%	-18.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.57%	-7.26%	-1.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.61%	5.76%	+7.85%

Volatility

LGHT vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) is 8.36%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that LGHT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGHT	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	9.04%	-0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.46%	19.86%	-3.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.43%	27.28%	-6.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.42%	28.89%	-9.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.42%	28.89%	-9.47%

LGHT vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGHT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGHT vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither LGHT nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGHT and LFSC in my portfolio?

LGHT and LFSC have a correlation of 0.45, 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 LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to LGHT (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGHT dropped -28.60% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, LGHT or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs -13.99% for LGHT. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% 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 LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% 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 LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for LGHT.

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

LGHT and LFSC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between LGHT and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Langar and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for LGHT and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 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.