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

Performance

AGNG vs. XHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) and SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS). 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 -4.79% return, which is significantly lower than XHS's 6.32% return. Over the past 10 years, AGNG has outperformed XHS with an annualized return of 8.76%, while XHS has yielded a comparatively lower 7.46% annualized return.


AGNG

1D
0.41%
1M
-2.10%
YTD
-4.79%
6M
-5.36%
1Y
9.81%
3Y*
8.25%
5Y*
3.96%
10Y*
8.76%

XHS

1D
0.28%
1M
2.77%
YTD
6.32%
6M
5.39%
1Y
16.58%
3Y*
8.47%
5Y*
0.44%
10Y*
7.46%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGNG vs. XHS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AGNG
Global X Aging Population ETF
-4.79%20.01%7.03%9.65%-8.61%3.91%18.96%25.24%-1.45%28.17%
XHS
SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF
6.32%18.83%1.76%5.15%-19.87%9.76%33.66%18.81%1.96%17.65%

Correlation

The correlation between AGNG and XHS is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.46

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

0.57

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

0.67

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

0.60

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

0.60

The correlation between AGNG and XHS shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AGNG vs. XHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AGNG
XHS

Healthcare

90.8%
98.0%

Real Estate

9.2%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

2.0%

Industrials

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

AGNG
90.8%
XHS
98.0%

Real Estate

AGNG
9.2%
XHS

-

Basic Materials

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Communication Services

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Consumer Cyclical

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Consumer Defensive

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Energy

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Financial Services

AGNG

-

XHS
2.0%

Industrials

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Technology

AGNG

-

XHS

-

Utilities

AGNG

-

XHS

-

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. XHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

AGNG
AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

XHS
XHS Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
XHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
XHS Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
XHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
XHS 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. XHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) and SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS). 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.


AGNGXHSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.72

0.95

-0.22

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.12

1.39

-0.27

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.13

1.18

-0.04

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.86

1.39

-0.53

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

2.34

3.83

-1.49

AGNG vs. XHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGNG Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is comparable to the XHS Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGNG and XHS, 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


AGNGXHSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.72

0.95

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.26

0.02

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.33

+0.18

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.53

0.57

-0.03

Drawdowns

AGNG vs. XHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGNG drawdown since its inception was -30.58%, smaller than the maximum XHS drawdown of -39.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGNG and XHS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AGNGXHSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.58%

-39.32%

+8.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.45%

-11.99%

+0.54%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.48%

-17.81%

+3.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.66%

-32.62%

+6.96%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.58%

-39.32%

+8.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.09%

-1.78%

-9.31%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.95%

-10.20%

+4.25%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.20%

4.33%

-0.13%

Volatility

AGNG vs. XHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) is 3.87%, while SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS) has a volatility of 4.80%. This indicates that AGNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AGNGXHSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.87%

4.80%

-0.93%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.00%

11.86%

-1.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.62%

17.56%

-3.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.22%

21.10%

-5.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.13%

22.40%

-5.27%

AGNG vs. XHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGNG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than XHS's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

AGNG vs. XHS - Dividend Comparison

AGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, more than XHS's 0.25% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AGNG
Global X Aging Population ETF
0.92%0.88%0.83%0.96%0.49%0.72%0.36%0.83%1.00%1.04%0.45%0.00%
XHS
SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF
0.25%0.27%0.38%0.23%0.19%0.20%0.23%2.37%0.34%0.22%0.28%0.93%

Frequently Asked Questions


AGNG and XHS have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XHS has higher volatility (4.80%) compared to AGNG (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGNG dropped -30.58% vs XHS's -39.32%.

On 10-year performance, AGNG leads with 8.76% vs 7.46% for XHS. On fees, XHS is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, AGNG has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, AGNG has performed better with a 8.76% return vs 7.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XHS is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for AGNG.

AGNG has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.25% for XHS.

AGNG tracks Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index, while XHS tracks S&P Health Care Services Select Industry Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for AGNG and 0.35% for XHS.

XHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.72), 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 XHS

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