PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AGNG vs. IDNA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AGNG vs. IDNA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGNG achieves a -2.82% return, which is significantly lower than IDNA's 14.39% return.


AGNG

1D
2.07%
1M
-0.03%
YTD
-2.82%
6M
-3.18%
1Y
11.38%
3Y*
8.98%
5Y*
4.39%
10Y*
8.91%

IDNA

1D
3.70%
1M
1.49%
YTD
14.39%
6M
11.58%
1Y
45.52%
3Y*
8.39%
5Y*
-7.75%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGNG vs. IDNA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
AGNG
Global X Aging Population ETF
-2.82%20.01%7.03%9.65%-8.61%3.91%18.96%13.53%
IDNA
iShares Genomics Immunology and Healthcare ETF Genomics Immunology and Healthcare Fund
14.39%17.26%-0.72%-7.63%-42.28%-3.98%54.30%20.83%

Correlation

The correlation between AGNG and IDNA is 0.70, 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

0.70

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.66

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.69

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2019

0.67

The correlation between AGNG and IDNA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

AGNG vs. IDNA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AGNG
IDNA

Healthcare

90.8%
97.8%

Real Estate

9.2%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Industrials

-

0.4%

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

AGNG
90.8%
IDNA
97.8%

Real Estate

AGNG
9.2%
IDNA

-

Basic Materials

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Communication Services

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Consumer Cyclical

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Consumer Defensive

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Energy

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Financial Services

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Industrials

AGNG

-

IDNA
0.4%

Technology

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

Utilities

AGNG

-

IDNA

-

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

AGNG vs. IDNA — Risk / Return Rank

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

AGNG
AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank

IDNA
IDNA Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IDNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IDNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
IDNA Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
IDNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
IDNA Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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.

AGNG vs. IDNA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


AGNGIDNADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.30

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.00

4.29

-3.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.69

12.20

-9.51

AGNG vs. IDNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGNG Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the IDNA Sharpe Ratio of 1.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGNG and IDNA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AGNGIDNADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.83

1.85

-1.02

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.29

-0.27

+0.56

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.52

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.12

+0.42

Drawdowns

AGNG vs. IDNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGNG drawdown since its inception was -30.58%, smaller than the maximum IDNA drawdown of -68.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGNG and IDNA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AGNGIDNADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.58%

-68.26%

+37.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.45%

-10.66%

-0.79%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.48%

-29.73%

+15.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.66%

-68.26%

+42.60%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.25%

-43.60%

+34.35%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.95%

-36.25%

+30.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.24%

3.74%

+0.50%

Volatility

AGNG vs. IDNA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) is 4.43%, while iShares Genomics Immunology and Healthcare ETF Genomics Immunology and Healthcare Fund (IDNA) has a volatility of 8.09%. This indicates that AGNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IDNA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AGNGIDNADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.43%

8.09%

-3.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.21%

18.14%

-7.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.77%

24.71%

-10.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.24%

28.46%

-13.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.14%

29.55%

-12.41%

AGNG vs. IDNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

AGNG vs. IDNA - Dividend Comparison

AGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than IDNA's 1.03% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
AGNG
Global X Aging Population ETF
0.90%0.88%0.83%0.96%0.49%0.72%0.36%0.83%1.00%1.04%0.45%
IDNA
iShares Genomics Immunology and Healthcare ETF Genomics Immunology and Healthcare Fund
1.03%1.18%0.98%1.04%0.54%0.70%0.26%0.80%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


AGNG and IDNA have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IDNA has higher volatility (8.09%) compared to AGNG (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGNG dropped -30.58% vs IDNA's -68.26%.

On 5-year performance, AGNG leads with 4.39% vs -7.75% for IDNA. On fees, IDNA is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, AGNG has been the lower-risk option at 4.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, AGNG has performed better with a 4.39% return vs -7.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

IDNA has the higher dividend yield at 1.03%, compared with 0.90% for AGNG.

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

IDNA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 0.83), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AGNG and IDNA

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