ZTEN vs. LFSC

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

ZTEN (F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and LFSC (F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZTEN is a Long-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while LFSC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by F/m. ZTEN is passively managed, while LFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, ZTEN returned 3.15% vs 88.41% for LFSC. Their 0.24 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ZTEN charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for LFSC.

Performance

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) 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, ZTEN achieves a 0.08% return, which is significantly lower than LFSC's 28.56% return.

ZTEN

• 1D: 0.60%
• 1M: -0.73%
• 6M: 0.06%
• YTD: 0.08%
• 1Y: 3.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.79%

LFSC

• 1D: 3.19%
• 1M: 2.02%
• 6M: 29.59%
• YTD: 28.56%
• 1Y: 88.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 43.27%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	$174.43K	$301.61K	$192.05K
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	$51.21K	$43.84K	$104.13K

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	0.08%	9.15%	0.29%
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	28.56%	56.54%	-1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between ZTEN and LFSC is 0.36, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.25

The correlation between ZTEN and LFSC shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (all time) to 0.36 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ZTEN vs. LFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ZTEN

ZTEN Risk / Return Rank: 25
ZTEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
ZTEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
ZTEN Omega Ratio Rank: 22
ZTEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
ZTEN Martin Ratio Rank: 28

LFSC

LFSC Risk / Return Rank: 93
LFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 92
LFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 89

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) 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.

	ZTEN	LFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	3.25	-2.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.94	4.11	-3.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.49	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.95	5.47	-4.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.62	15.40	-12.77

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZTEN Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the LFSC Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZTEN 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

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZTEN drawdown since its inception was -3.43%, smaller than the maximum LFSC drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZTEN and LFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZTEN	LFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.43%	-29.74%	+26.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.32%	-16.25%	+12.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.54%	-0.64%	-0.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.86%	-7.24%	+6.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.20%	5.76%	-4.56%

Volatility

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) is 1.53%, while F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF (LFSC) has a volatility of 9.45%. This indicates that ZTEN 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

	ZTEN	LFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.53%	9.45%	-7.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.07%	19.96%	-15.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.92%	27.42%	-22.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.73%	28.91%	-23.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.73%	28.91%	-23.18%

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZTEN has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than LFSC's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZTEN vs. LFSC - Dividend Comparison

ZTEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.08%, while LFSC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFSC F/m Emerald Life Sciences Innovation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	5.08%	5.16%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZTEN and LFSC in my portfolio?

ZTEN and LFSC have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZTEN or LFSC?

LFSC has higher volatility (9.45%) compared to ZTEN (1.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZTEN dropped -3.43% vs LFSC's -29.74%.

Which ETF is better, ZTEN or LFSC?

On 1-year performance, LFSC leads with 88.41% vs 3.15% for ZTEN. On fees, ZTEN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZTEN or LFSC?

Over the 1-year period, LFSC has performed better with a 88.41% return vs 3.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZTEN or LFSC?

ZTEN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for LFSC.

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

ZTEN has the higher dividend yield at 5.08%, compared with 0.00% for LFSC.

What is the main difference between ZTEN and LFSC?

ZTEN is categorized as Long-Term Bond, while LFSC is Health & Biotech Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for ZTEN and 0.54% for LFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 0.64), 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.