PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TMED vs. LFSC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with TMED having a 3.87% return and LFSC slightly lower at 3.84%.


TMED

1D
1.04%
1M
2.47%
YTD
3.87%
6M
4.17%
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

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)

TMED vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between TMED and LFSC is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2025

0.67

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


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

LFSC
LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
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.


Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

TMED vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


TMEDLFSCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.35

1.07

+0.28

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.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TMEDLFSCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-11.11%

-29.74%

+18.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.25%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.75%

-3.57%

+0.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.59%

-7.82%

+5.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.82%

Volatility

TMED vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TMEDLFSCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.04%

26.01%

-7.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.04%

28.90%

-10.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.04%

28.90%

-10.86%

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 0.52%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.


Frequently Asked Questions


TMED and LFSC have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, TMED is cheaper at 0.44% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

TMED has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.00% for 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for TMED and LFSC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer