RSPH vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RSPH (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. RSPH is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, RSPH returned 25.63% vs 86.46% for LFSC. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. RSPH charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

RSPH vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) 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, RSPH achieves a 9.56% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 24.40% return.

RSPH

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 0.70%
• 6M: 8.20%
• YTD: 9.56%
• 1Y: 25.63%
• 3Y*: 6.05%
• 5Y*: 3.14%
• 10Y*: 8.73%
• ALL TIME*: 10.98%

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
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	$2.33M	$3.63M	$4.82M

RSPH vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	9.56%	9.52%	-4.72%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	24.40%	56.54%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPH and LFSC is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2024	0.48

Return for Risk

RSPH vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPH

RSPH Risk / Return Rank: 66
RSPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
RSPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RSPH Omega Ratio Rank: 67
RSPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RSPH Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

RSPH vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) 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.

	RSPH	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	3.25	-1.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	4.10	-1.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.49	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.34	5.45	-3.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.96	15.35	-9.39

RSPH vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPH Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPH 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

RSPH vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPH drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPH and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPH	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-29.74%	-10.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-16.25%	+5.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.22%	-3.85%	+2.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.11%	-7.26%	+1.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.27%	5.76%	-1.49%

Volatility

RSPH vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) is 5.90%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that RSPH 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

	RSPH	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.90%	9.04%	-3.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.99%	19.86%	-7.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.35%	27.28%	-10.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.55%	28.89%	-12.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.79%	28.89%	-11.10%

RSPH vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPH has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPH vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

RSPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, 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%
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	0.67%	0.70%	0.71%	0.66%	0.64%	0.50%	0.51%	0.54%	0.53%	0.47%	0.48%	0.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSPH and LFSC in my portfolio?

RSPH and LFSC have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPH or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to RSPH (5.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPH dropped -40.49% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, RSPH or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 86.46% vs 25.63% for RSPH. On fees, RSPH is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RSPH has been the lower-risk option at 5.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPH or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 86.46% return vs 25.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPH or LFSC?

RSPH is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

RSPH has the higher dividend yield at 0.67%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between RSPH and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPH and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 1.60), 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.