PJP vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PJP (Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. PJP is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, PJP returned 34.73% vs 58.79% for LFSC. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PJP charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

PJP vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP) 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, PJP achieves a 2.90% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 3.84% return.

PJP

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 2.90%
• 6M: 2.29%
• 1Y: 34.73%
• 3Y*: 13.31%
• 5Y*: 7.62%
• 10Y*: 6.15%

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)

PJP vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PJP Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF	2.90%	27.98%	-4.20%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%

Correlation

The correlation between PJP and LFSC is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.67

The correlation between PJP and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PJP vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PJP

PJP Risk / Return Rank: 64
PJP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
PJP Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
PJP Omega Ratio Rank: 57
PJP Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
PJP Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

PJP vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP) 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.

	PJP	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	2.28	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.19	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.38	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	3.64	+0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.55	10.14	+1.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PJP vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PJP Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PJP 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

	PJP	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13	2.28	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	1.07	-0.48

Drawdowns

PJP vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PJP drawdown since its inception was -37.06%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PJP and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PJP	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.06%	-29.74%	-7.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.44%	-16.25%	+6.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.51%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.95%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.94%	-3.57%	+0.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.85%	-7.82%	-1.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.02%	5.82%	-2.80%

Volatility

PJP vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP) is 5.33%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.43%. This indicates that PJP 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

	PJP	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	7.43%	-2.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.02%	18.52%	-6.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.38%	26.01%	-9.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.17%	28.90%	-12.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.39%	28.90%	-10.51%

PJP vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PJP has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

PJP vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

PJP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation 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%
PJP Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF	0.99%	0.98%	0.97%	1.01%	0.95%	0.81%	0.75%	0.77%	1.12%	0.65%	0.91%	5.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PJP and LFSC in my portfolio?

PJP and LFSC have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PJP or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to PJP (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PJP dropped -37.06% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, PJP or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 34.73% for PJP. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, PJP has been the lower-risk option at 5.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PJP or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 34.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PJP or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for PJP.

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

PJP has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between PJP and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for PJP and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.13), 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.