ZHOG vs. LFSC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZHOG (F/m Opportunistic Income ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZHOG is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by F/m Investments, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m Investments. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ZHOG returned 5.54% vs 58.79% for LFSC. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZHOG charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/m Opportunistic Income ETF (ZHOG) 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, ZHOG achieves a 0.77% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 3.84% return.

ZHOG

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 0.77%
• 6M: 1.11%
• 1Y: 5.54%
• 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)

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZHOG F/m Opportunistic Income ETF	0.77%	5.98%	0.54%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	3.84%	56.54%	-6.02%

Correlation

The correlation between ZHOG and LFSC is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2024	0.28

Return for Risk

ZHOG vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZHOG

ZHOG Risk / Return Rank: 90
ZHOG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
ZHOG Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
ZHOG Omega Ratio Rank: 95
ZHOG Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ZHOG Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/m Opportunistic Income ETF (ZHOG) 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.

	ZHOG	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.50	2.28	+1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.53	3.19	+2.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.72	1.38	+0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.25	3.64	+0.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.40	10.14	+8.26
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZHOG Sharpe Ratio is 3.50, which is higher than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZHOG 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

	ZHOG	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.50	2.28	+1.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.62	1.07	+0.55

Drawdowns

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZHOG drawdown since its inception was -3.66%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZHOG and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZHOG	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.66%	-29.74%	+26.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.31%	-16.25%	+14.94%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-3.57%	+3.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.70%	-7.82%	+7.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	5.82%	-5.52%

Volatility

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for F/m Opportunistic Income ETF (ZHOG) is 0.45%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 7.43%. This indicates that ZHOG 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

	ZHOG	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.45%	7.43%	-6.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.14%	18.52%	-17.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.59%	26.01%	-24.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.01%	28.90%	-24.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.01%	28.90%	-24.89%

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZHOG has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZHOG vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

ZHOG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.11%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZHOG F/m Opportunistic Income ETF	5.11%	5.35%	5.50%	1.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZHOG and LFSC in my portfolio?

ZHOG and LFSC have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZHOG or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to ZHOG (0.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZHOG dropped -3.66% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, ZHOG or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 58.79% vs 5.54% for ZHOG. On fees, ZHOG is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, ZHOG has been the lower-risk option at 0.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZHOG or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 58.79% return vs 5.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZHOG or LFSC?

ZHOG is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

ZHOG has the higher dividend yield at 5.11%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between ZHOG and LFSC?

ZHOG is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for ZHOG and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZHOG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.50 vs 2.28), 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.