PTH vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PTH (Invesco DWA Healthcare Momentum ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PTH is a Momentum fund tracking the Dorsey Wright Healthcare Technical Leaders Index, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments. PTH is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, PTH returned 47.97% vs 75.29% for LFSC. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PTH charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

PTH vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco DWA Healthcare Momentum ETF (PTH) 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, PTH achieves a 10.66% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 16.36% return.

PTH

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 7.38%
• YTD: 10.66%
• 6M: 8.96%
• 1Y: 47.97%
• 3Y*: 12.29%
• 5Y*: 0.29%
• 10Y*: 14.65%

LFSC

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 11.21%
• YTD: 16.36%
• 6M: 9.80%
• 1Y: 75.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PTH vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PTH Invesco DWA Healthcare Momentum ETF	10.66%	27.91%	-11.88%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	16.36%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between PTH and LFSC is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.81

The correlation between PTH and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PTH vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PTH

PTH Risk / Return Rank: 66
PTH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
PTH Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
PTH Omega Ratio Rank: 58
PTH Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
PTH Martin Ratio Rank: 61

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 85
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

PTH vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco DWA Healthcare Momentum ETF (PTH) 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.

	PTH	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	2.85	-0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	3.79	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.45	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	4.66	-0.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.05	13.00	-2.94

PTH vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PTH Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PTH 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

PTH vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PTH drawdown since its inception was -53.52%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PTH and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PTH	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.52%	-29.74%	-23.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.98%	-16.25%	+4.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.07%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.70%	0.00%	-9.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.99%	-7.58%	-9.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.79%	5.81%	-1.02%

Volatility

PTH vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco DWA Healthcare Momentum ETF (PTH) has a higher volatility of 9.29% compared to F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) at 7.86%. This indicates that PTH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PTH	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.29%	7.86%	+1.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.85%	18.94%	-0.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.06%	26.56%	-2.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.57%	28.90%	-3.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.30%	28.90%	-1.60%

PTH vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PTH has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

PTH vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

PTH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.78%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PTH Invesco DWA Healthcare Momentum ETF	2.78%	3.07%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PTH and LFSC in my portfolio?

PTH and LFSC have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PTH or LFSC?

PTH has higher volatility (9.29%) compared to LFSC (7.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PTH dropped -53.52% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, PTH or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 75.29% vs 47.97% for PTH. On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PTH or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 75.29% return vs 47.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PTH or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PTH.

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

PTH has the higher dividend yield at 2.78%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between PTH and LFSC?

PTH is categorized as Momentum, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PTH and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 2.00), 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.