BMED vs. AGNG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BMED (Future Health ETF) and AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. BMED is actively managed, while AGNG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BMED returned -0.08%/yr vs 4.39%/yr for AGNG. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BMED charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for AGNG.

Performance

BMED vs. AGNG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMED achieves a -5.19% return, which is significantly lower than AGNG's -2.82% return.

BMED

• 1D: 1.98%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: -5.19%
• 6M: -5.93%
• 1Y: 17.59%
• 3Y*: 5.91%
• 5Y*: -0.08%
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

BMED vs. AGNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BMED Future Health ETF	-5.19%	21.79%	1.55%	5.70%	-19.69%	-3.96%	17.86%
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	-2.82%	20.01%	7.03%	9.65%	-8.61%	3.91%	8.65%

Correlation

The correlation between BMED and AGNG is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2020	0.83

The correlation between BMED and AGNG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

BMED vs. AGNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMED	AGNG
Healthcare	100.0%	90.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	9.2%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BMED vs. AGNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMED

BMED Risk / Return Rank: 29
BMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
BMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
BMED Omega Ratio Rank: 31
BMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
BMED Martin Ratio Rank: 24

AGNG

AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 23
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

BMED vs. AGNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Future Health ETF (BMED) and Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG). 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.

	BMED	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	0.83	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	1.28	+0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.15	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	1.00	+0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.00	2.69	+0.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BMED vs. AGNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMED Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is higher than the AGNG Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMED and AGNG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BMED	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	0.83	+0.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.00	0.29	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	0.54	-0.42

Drawdowns

BMED vs. AGNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMED drawdown since its inception was -36.44%, which is greater than AGNG's maximum drawdown of -30.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMED and AGNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMED	AGNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.44%	-30.58%	-5.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.85%	-11.45%	-3.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.12%	-14.48%	-5.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.90%	-25.66%	-8.24%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.17%	-9.25%	-1.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.08%	-5.95%	-13.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.88%	4.24%	+1.64%

Volatility

BMED vs. AGNG - Volatility Comparison

Future Health ETF (BMED) has a higher volatility of 4.74% compared to Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) at 4.43%. This indicates that BMED's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMED	AGNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.74%	4.43%	+0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.23%	10.21%	+1.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.23%	13.77%	+1.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.43%	15.24%	+2.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.77%	17.14%	+0.63%

BMED vs. AGNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BMED has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than AGNG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BMED vs. AGNG - Dividend Comparison

BMED has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
BMED Future Health ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMED and AGNG in my portfolio?

BMED and AGNG have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMED or AGNG?

BMED has higher volatility (4.74%) compared to AGNG (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMED dropped -36.44% vs AGNG's -30.58%.

Which ETF is better, BMED or AGNG?

On 5-year performance, AGNG leads with 4.39% vs -0.08% for BMED. On fees, AGNG is cheaper at 0.50% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, BMED or AGNG?

Over the 5-year period, AGNG has performed better with a 4.39% return vs -0.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMED or AGNG?

AGNG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BMED.

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

AGNG has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.00% for BMED.

What is the main difference between BMED and AGNG?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BMED and 0.50% for AGNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BMED currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.16 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.