AGNG vs. IBRN

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) and IBRN (iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - AGNG tracks the Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index while IBRN tracks the NYSE FactSet Global Neuro Biopharma and MedTech Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, AGNG returned 9.44%/yr vs 15.16%/yr for IBRN. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AGNG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBRN.

Performance

AGNG vs. IBRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGNG achieves a -1.30% return, which is significantly lower than IBRN's 15.46% return.

AGNG

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: -1.10%
• YTD: -1.30%
• 6M: -2.50%
• 1Y: 12.38%
• 3Y*: 9.44%
• 5Y*: 3.58%
• 10Y*: 9.52%

IBRN

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 7.72%
• YTD: 15.46%
• 6M: 14.40%
• 1Y: 69.09%
• 3Y*: 15.16%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AGNG vs. IBRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	-1.30%	20.01%	7.03%	9.65%	1.57%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	15.46%	28.49%	-2.78%	0.92%	2.87%

Correlation

The correlation between AGNG and IBRN is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 26, 2022	0.64

The correlation between AGNG and IBRN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

AGNG vs. IBRN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AGNG	IBRN
Healthcare	91.2%	100.0%
Real Estate	8.9%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AGNG vs. IBRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

AGNG

AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 26
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 26
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 23

IBRN

IBRN Risk / Return Rank: 90
IBRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
IBRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
IBRN Omega Ratio Rank: 81
IBRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBRN Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

AGNG vs. IBRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). 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.

	AGNG	IBRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.91	2.73	-1.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.39	3.63	-2.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.42	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.09	7.89	-6.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.64	22.29	-19.65

AGNG vs. IBRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGNG Sharpe Ratio is 0.91, which is lower than the IBRN Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGNG and IBRN, 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

AGNG vs. IBRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGNG drawdown since its inception was -30.58%, smaller than the maximum IBRN drawdown of -35.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGNG and IBRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGNG	IBRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.58%	-35.38%	+4.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.45%	-8.80%	-2.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.48%	-35.38%	+20.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.83%	0.00%	-7.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.97%	-9.74%	+3.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	3.11%	+1.60%

Volatility

AGNG vs. IBRN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) is 4.46%, while iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) has a volatility of 8.19%. This indicates that AGNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AGNG	IBRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.46%	8.19%	-3.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.37%	19.05%	-8.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.75%	25.49%	-11.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.24%	25.35%	-10.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	25.35%	-8.21%

AGNG vs. IBRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGNG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IBRN's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

AGNG vs. IBRN - Dividend Comparison

AGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, more than IBRN's 0.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	0.89%	0.88%	0.83%	0.96%	0.49%	0.72%	0.36%	0.83%	1.00%	1.04%	0.45%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	0.86%	0.99%	0.40%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AGNG and IBRN in my portfolio?

AGNG and IBRN have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AGNG or IBRN?

IBRN has higher volatility (8.19%) compared to AGNG (4.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGNG dropped -30.58% vs IBRN's -35.38%.

Which ETF is better, AGNG or IBRN?

On 3-year performance, IBRN leads with 15.16% vs 9.44% for AGNG. On fees, IBRN is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, AGNG has been the lower-risk option at 4.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGNG or IBRN?

Over the 3-year period, IBRN has performed better with a 15.16% return vs 9.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGNG or IBRN?

IBRN is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for AGNG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AGNG or IBRN?

AGNG has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.86% for IBRN.

What is the main difference between AGNG and IBRN?

AGNG tracks Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index, while IBRN tracks NYSE FactSet Global Neuro Biopharma and MedTech Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for AGNG and 0.47% for IBRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 0.91), 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.