TMED vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TMED (T. Rowe Price Health Care ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Over the past year, TMED returned 33.64% vs 74.61% for LFSC. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMED charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

TMED vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Health Care ETF (TMED) 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, TMED achieves a 10.47% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 18.23% return.

TMED

• 1D: 1.71%
• 1M: 5.92%
• YTD: 10.47%
• 6M: 9.58%
• 1Y: 33.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LFSC

• 1D: 1.61%
• 1M: 13.00%
• YTD: 18.23%
• 6M: 10.21%
• 1Y: 74.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMED vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TMED T. Rowe Price Health Care ETF	10.47%	19.49%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	18.23%	48.48%

Correlation

The correlation between TMED and LFSC is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2025	0.68

The correlation between TMED and LFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TMED vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMED

TMED Risk / Return Rank: 66
TMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
TMED Omega Ratio Rank: 61
TMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
TMED Martin Ratio Rank: 64

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 87
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

TMED vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Health Care ETF (TMED) 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.

	TMED	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	2.83	-0.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	3.76	-1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.45	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	4.62	-1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.95	12.88	-2.93

TMED vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMED Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMED 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

TMED vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMED drawdown since its inception was -11.11%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMED and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMED	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.11%	-29.74%	+18.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.11%	-16.25%	+5.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.47%	-7.56%	+5.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.39%	5.81%	-2.42%

Volatility

TMED vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Health Care ETF (TMED) is 6.00%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.85%. This indicates that TMED 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

	TMED	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.00%	7.85%	-1.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.61%	18.83%	-5.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.21%	26.60%	-8.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.08%	28.89%	-10.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.08%	28.89%	-10.81%

TMED vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMED has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMED vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

TMED's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.49%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%
TMED T. Rowe Price Health Care ETF	0.49%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMED and LFSC in my portfolio?

TMED and LFSC have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMED or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.85%) compared to TMED (6.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMED dropped -11.11% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, TMED or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 74.61% vs 33.64% for TMED. On fees, TMED is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, TMED has been the lower-risk option at 6.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMED or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 74.61% return vs 33.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMED or LFSC?

TMED is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

TMED has the higher dividend yield at 0.49%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between TMED and LFSC?

They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TMED and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 1.86), 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.