CNCR vs. XMHQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CNCR (Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNCR is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy Index, while XMHQ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Both are passively managed. CNCR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF (CNCR) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

CNCR

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XMHQ

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 7.73%
• 6M: 5.47%
• 1Y: 14.55%
• 3Y*: 14.98%
• 5Y*: 9.36%
• 10Y*: 12.91%

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

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CNCR Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF	0.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	3.45%

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNCR	XMHQ
Healthcare	96.6%	20.4%
Financial Services	3.3%	14.3%
Basic Materials	-	5.0%
Communication Services	-	2.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.4%
Energy	-	5.9%
Industrials	-	25.9%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	13.5%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

CNCR vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNCR

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 29
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 24
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF (CNCR) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CNCR	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.93	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.45	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.16	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.65	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	4.82	—

Drawdowns

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNCR drawdown since its inception was 0.00%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNCR and XMHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNCR	XMHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	0.00%	-58.19%	+58.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-8.85%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.47%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.30%	+2.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	0.00%	-9.27%	+9.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.03%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CNCR	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	4.52%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	11.46%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.00%	15.77%	-15.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.00%	20.74%	-20.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.00%	20.68%	-20.68%

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNCR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNCR vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

CNCR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNCR Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.59%	0.64%	5.20%	0.73%	1.72%	1.00%	1.12%	1.22%	1.59%	1.06%	1.63%	1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Which ETF is better, CNCR or XMHQ?

On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNCR or XMHQ?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for CNCR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CNCR or XMHQ?

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.59%, compared with 0.00% for CNCR.

What is the main difference between CNCR and XMHQ?

CNCR is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while XMHQ is Mid Cap Blend Equities. CNCR tracks Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy Index, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for CNCR and 0.25% for XMHQ.