SBIO vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SBIO (ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. SBIO is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, SBIO returned 65.41% vs 58.79% for LFSC. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SBIO charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

SBIO vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) 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, SBIO achieves a -0.39% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 3.84% return.

SBIO

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: -7.56%
• YTD: -0.39%
• 6M: 3.05%
• 1Y: 65.41%
• 3Y*: 17.80%
• 5Y*: 2.68%
• 10Y*: 8.02%

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)

SBIO vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	-0.39%	55.07%	-9.41%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%

Correlation

The correlation between SBIO 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 Nov 1, 2024	0.83

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

Return for Risk

SBIO vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

SBIO

SBIO Risk / Return Rank: 72
SBIO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
SBIO Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
SBIO Omega Ratio Rank: 59
SBIO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
SBIO Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

SBIO vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) 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.

	SBIO	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	2.28	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	3.19	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.38	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.19	3.64	+1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.57	10.14	+5.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SBIO vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SBIO Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is comparable to the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SBIO 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

	SBIO	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.24	2.28	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.21	1.07	-0.86

Drawdowns

SBIO vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SBIO drawdown since its inception was -63.06%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SBIO and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	SBIO	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.06%	-29.74%	-33.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.66%	-16.25%	+3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.44%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.79%	-3.57%	-13.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.45%	-7.82%	-20.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.22%	5.82%	-1.60%

Volatility

SBIO vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) has a higher volatility of 9.48% compared to F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) at 7.43%. This indicates that SBIO'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

	SBIO	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.48%	7.43%	+2.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.70%	18.52%	+4.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.42%	26.01%	+3.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.56%	28.90%	+4.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.17%	28.90%	+4.27%

SBIO vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

SBIO has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

SBIO vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

Neither SBIO nor LFSC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	0.00%	0.00%	3.55%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%	2.79%	1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SBIO and LFSC in my portfolio?

SBIO 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, SBIO or LFSC?

SBIO has higher volatility (9.48%) compared to LFSC (7.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SBIO dropped -63.06% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, SBIO or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, SBIO leads with 65.41% vs 58.79% for LFSC. On fees, SBIO is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, LFSC has been the lower-risk option at 7.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SBIO or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, SBIO has performed better with a 65.41% return vs 58.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SBIO or LFSC?

SBIO is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

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

What is the main difference between SBIO and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for SBIO and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.24), 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.