MDEV vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MDEV (First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. MDEV is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, MDEV returned -7.05% vs 58.79% for LFSC. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MDEV charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

MDEV vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF (MDEV) 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, MDEV achieves a -11.48% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 3.84% return.

MDEV

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.54%
• YTD: -11.48%
• 6M: -12.29%
• 1Y: -7.05%
• 3Y*: -2.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: -1.63%
• YTD: 3.84%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 58.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MDEV vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MDEV First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF	-11.48%	2.00%	-2.91%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%

Correlation

The correlation between MDEV and LFSC is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.54

The correlation between MDEV and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MDEV vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

MDEV

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

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 67
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

MDEV vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF (MDEV) 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.

	MDEV	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.44	2.28	-2.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.53	3.19	-3.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.38	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.39	3.64	-4.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.98	10.14	-11.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MDEV vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MDEV Sharpe Ratio is -0.44, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MDEV 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MDEV	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.44	2.28	-2.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.32	1.07	-1.39

Drawdowns

MDEV vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MDEV drawdown since its inception was -42.34%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MDEV and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	MDEV	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.34%	-29.74%	-12.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.13%	-16.25%	-1.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.76%	-3.57%	-30.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.65%	-7.82%	-17.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.22%	5.82%	+1.40%

Volatility

MDEV vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Indxx Medical Devices ETF (MDEV) is 4.60%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.43%. This indicates that MDEV 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

	MDEV	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.60%	7.43%	-2.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.42%	18.52%	-7.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.00%	26.01%	-10.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.98%	28.90%	-9.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.98%	28.90%	-9.92%

MDEV vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

MDEV has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

MDEV vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither MDEV nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MDEV and LFSC in my portfolio?

MDEV and LFSC have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MDEV or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to MDEV (4.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MDEV dropped -42.34% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, MDEV or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs -7.05% for MDEV. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, MDEV has been the lower-risk option at 4.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MDEV or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs -7.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MDEV or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for MDEV.

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

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

What is the main difference between MDEV and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for MDEV and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs -0.44), 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.