UNHW vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

UNHW (Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UNHW is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill Investments, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments. Both are actively managed. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UNHW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

UNHW vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF (UNHW) 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, UNHW achieves a 27.05% return, which is significantly higher than LFSC's 16.36% return.

UNHW

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: 6.62%
• YTD: 27.05%
• 6M: 29.58%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

UNHW vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
UNHW Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF	27.05%	1.54%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	16.36%	0.14%

Correlation

The correlation between UNHW and LFSC is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2025	0.17

Return for Risk

UNHW vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

UNHW

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

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.

UNHW vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF (UNHW) 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.

	UNHW	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.85	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.79	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.45	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.66	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	13.00	—

Drawdowns

UNHW vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UNHW drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, which is greater than LFSC's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UNHW and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	UNHW	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.28%	-29.74%	-2.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-16.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.45%	0.00%	-0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.32%	-7.58%	-3.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.81%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	UNHW	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	7.86%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	18.94%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	48.61%	26.56%	+22.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	48.61%	28.90%	+19.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.61%	28.90%	+19.71%

UNHW vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

UNHW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

UNHW vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

UNHW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 18.13%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%
UNHW Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF	18.13%	2.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UNHW and LFSC in my portfolio?

UNHW and LFSC have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, UNHW or LFSC?

On fees, LFSC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, UNHW or LFSC?

LFSC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for UNHW.

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

UNHW has the higher dividend yield at 18.13%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between UNHW and LFSC?

UNHW is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill Investments and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for UNHW and 0.54% for LFSC.