PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
AGNG vs. IYH
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

AGNG vs. IYH

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) and IYH (iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - AGNG tracks the Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index while IYH tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AGNG returned 8.91%/yr vs 9.20%/yr for IYH. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AGNG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for IYH.

Performance

AGNG vs. IYH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) and iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF (IYH). 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 IYH's -1.42% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with AGNG having a 8.91% annualized return and IYH not far ahead at 9.20%.

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%

IYH

1D
2.89%
1M
4.56%
YTD
-1.42%
6M
-1.04%
1Y
16.06%
3Y*
6.36%
5Y*
5.19%
10Y*
9.20%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGNG vs. IYH - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AGNG
Global X Aging Population ETF		-2.82%20.01%7.03%9.65%-8.61%3.91%18.96%25.24%-1.45%28.17%
IYH
iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF		-1.42%13.16%2.99%2.14%-4.46%23.41%15.56%20.80%5.80%22.27%

Correlation

The correlation between AGNG and IYH is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.81

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

0.79

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

0.82

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2016

0.73

The correlation between AGNG and IYH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

AGNG vs. IYH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
AGNG
IYH

Healthcare

90.8%
100.0%

Real Estate

9.2%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

AGNG
90.8%
IYH
100.0%

Real Estate

AGNG
9.2%
IYH

-

Basic Materials

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Communication Services

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Consumer Cyclical

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Consumer Defensive

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Energy

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Financial Services

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Industrials

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Technology

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Utilities

AGNG

-

IYH

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Global X Aging Population ETF

iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF

Often compared with AGNG:
AGNG vs. AGES.LAGNG vs. XLVAGNG vs. WDNAAGNG vs. LLYAGNG vs. SPYAGNG vs. GDOCAGNG vs. VOO
Often compared with IYH:
IYH vs. VHTIYH vs. XLVIYH vs. SPYIYH vs. IYEIYH vs. IFRAIYH vs. BMEDIYH vs. IBB

Return for Risk

AGNG vs. IYH — 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
IYH
IYH Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
IYH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IYH Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
IYH Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
IYH Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
IYH Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
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. IYH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

AGNGIYHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.83
1.07

-0.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.28
1.71

-0.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.19

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.00

1.52

-0.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.69

3.64

-0.95

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AGNG vs. IYH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGNG Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is comparable to the IYH Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGNG and IYH, 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

AGNGIYHDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.83

1.07

-0.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.29

0.35

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.52

0.55

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.43

+0.11

Drawdowns

AGNG vs. IYH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGNG drawdown since its inception was -30.58%, smaller than the maximum IYH drawdown of -43.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGNG and IYH.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

AGNGIYHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.58%

-43.12%

+12.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.45%

-10.64%

-0.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.48%

-17.91%

+3.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.66%

-17.91%

-7.75%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.58%

-28.40%

-2.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.25%

-4.68%

-4.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.95%

-8.96%

+3.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.24%

4.42%

-0.18%

Volatility

AGNG vs. IYH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) is 4.43%, while iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF (IYH) has a volatility of 5.06%. This indicates that AGNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IYH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

AGNGIYHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.43%

5.06%

-0.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.21%

10.70%

-0.49%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.77%

15.01%

-1.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.24%

14.97%

+0.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.14%

16.74%

+0.40%

AGNG vs. IYH - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGNG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IYH's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

AGNG vs. IYH - Dividend Comparison

AGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than IYH's 1.26% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%
IYH
iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF		1.26%1.19%1.25%1.18%1.10%0.94%1.16%1.14%1.95%1.10%1.29%2.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

AGNG and IYH have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IYH has higher volatility (5.06%) compared to AGNG (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGNG dropped -30.58% vs IYH's -43.12%.

On 10-year performance, IYH leads with 9.20% vs 8.91% for AGNG. On fees, IYH is cheaper at 0.43% 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 10-year period, IYH has performed better with a 9.20% return vs 8.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IYH is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for AGNG.

IYH has the higher dividend yield at 1.26%, compared with 0.90% for AGNG.

AGNG tracks Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index, while IYH tracks Dow Jones U.S. Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for AGNG and 0.43% for IYH.

IYH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.07 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 IYH

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