CANC vs. AGNG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CANC (Tema Oncology ETF) and AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. CANC is actively managed, while AGNG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CANC returned 107.76%/yr vs 8.25%/yr for AGNG. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CANC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for AGNG.

Performance

CANC vs. AGNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) 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, CANC achieves a 4.82% return, which is significantly higher than AGNG's -4.79% return.

CANC

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -3.73%
• YTD: 4.82%
• 6M: 3.86%
• 1Y: 47.37%
• 3Y*: 107.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

CANC vs. AGNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	4.82%	42.92%	-5.37%	510.51%	-85.34%	-51.82%
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	-4.79%	20.01%	7.03%	9.65%	-8.61%	-0.89%

Correlation

The correlation between CANC and AGNG is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.48

Over the past year, CANC and AGNG have become more correlated (0.72) than their long-term average of 0.48, meaning their price movements have been converging.

CANC vs. AGNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

CANC vs. AGNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CANC

CANC Risk / Return Rank: 69
CANC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CANC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CANC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CANC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CANC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

AGNG

AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 20
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 20
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

CANC vs. AGNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) 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.

	CANC	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	0.72	+1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.96	1.12	+1.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.13	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.49	0.86	+4.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.62	2.34	+12.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CANC vs. AGNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CANC Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is higher than the AGNG Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CANC 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

	CANC	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	0.72	+1.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.26	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.04	0.53	-0.57

Drawdowns

CANC vs. AGNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CANC drawdown since its inception was -97.53%, which is greater than AGNG's maximum drawdown of -30.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANC and AGNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CANC	AGNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.53%	-30.58%	-66.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.67%	-11.45%	+2.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.27%	-14.48%	-15.79%
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	-56.55%	-11.09%	-45.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-73.19%	-5.95%	-67.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.25%	4.20%	-0.95%

Volatility

CANC vs. AGNG - Volatility Comparison

Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) has a higher volatility of 6.26% compared to Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) at 3.87%. This indicates that CANC'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

	CANC	AGNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.26%	3.87%	+2.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.69%	10.00%	+6.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.11%	13.62%	+9.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	280.27%	15.22%	+265.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	280.27%	17.13%	+263.14%

CANC vs. AGNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CANC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than AGNG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CANC vs. AGNG - Dividend Comparison

CANC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%, less than AGNG's 0.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	0.05%	0.06%	3.00%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CANC and AGNG in my portfolio?

CANC and AGNG have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CANC or AGNG?

CANC has higher volatility (6.26%) compared to AGNG (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANC dropped -97.53% vs AGNG's -30.58%.

Which ETF is better, CANC or AGNG?

On 3-year performance, CANC leads with 107.76% vs 8.25% for AGNG. On fees, AGNG is cheaper at 0.50% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, CANC or AGNG?

Over the 3-year period, CANC has performed better with a 107.76% return vs 8.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CANC or AGNG?

AGNG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CANC.

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

AGNG has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.05% for CANC.

What is the main difference between CANC and AGNG?

They also come from different issuers: Tema and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CANC and 0.50% for AGNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CANC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 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.