EDOC vs. FHLC
EDOC (Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - EDOC tracks the Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net while FHLC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EDOC returned -12.95%/yr vs 4.81%/yr for FHLC. Their 0.61 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EDOC charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.
Performance
EDOC vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EDOC achieves a -5.19% return, which is significantly lower than FHLC's 6.71% return.
EDOC
- 1D
- 2.94%
- 1M
- -4.37%
- 6M
- -2.05%
- YTD
- -5.19%
- 1Y
- -10.31%
- 3Y*
- -6.93%
- 5Y*
- -12.95%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -9.16%
FHLC
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- -1.19%
- 6M
- 6.28%
- YTD
- 6.71%
- 1Y
- 27.87%
- 3Y*
- 9.42%
- 5Y*
- 4.81%
- 10Y*
- 9.77%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.71%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $260.96K | $227.88K | $213.27K | |
| $13.38M | $17.91M | $16.14M |
EDOC vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF | -5.19% | -0.62% | -2.87% | -12.61% | -29.99% | -14.21% | 16.89% |
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF | 6.71% | 15.42% | 2.48% | 2.58% | -5.55% | 20.39% | 9.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between EDOC and FHLC is 0.54, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.54 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.53 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.61 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2020 | 0.61 |
The correlation between EDOC and FHLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
EDOC vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank
EDOC
FHLC
EDOC vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). 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.
| EDOC | FHLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.30 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.94 | 1.32 | -0.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.34 | 2.70 | -3.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.61 | 6.71 | -7.32 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EDOC vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EDOC drawdown since its inception was -65.76%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDOC and FHLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EDOC | FHLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.76% | -28.76% | -37.00% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.71% | -10.38% | -20.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -34.56% | -16.87% | -17.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -59.14% | -17.73% | -41.41% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -28.76% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -59.07% | -2.81% | -56.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -43.49% | -5.16% | -38.33% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.90% | 4.16% | +12.74% |
Volatility
EDOC vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison
Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC) has a higher volatility of 6.91% compared to Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) at 4.94%. This indicates that EDOC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FHLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EDOC | FHLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.91% | 4.94% | +1.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.44% | 11.69% | +5.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.91% | 15.17% | +7.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 26.67% | 15.25% | +11.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.27% | 16.90% | +9.37% |
EDOC vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
EDOC has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.
Dividends
EDOC vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison
EDOC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.26%, less than FHLC's 1.30% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF | 0.26% | 0.33% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF | 1.30% | 1.40% | 1.51% | 1.40% | 1.30% | 1.16% | 1.45% | 1.18% | 1.38% | 1.38% | 1.40% | 2.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EDOC and FHLC have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EDOC has higher volatility (6.91%) compared to FHLC (4.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDOC dropped -65.76% vs FHLC's -28.76%.
On 5-year performance, FHLC leads with 4.81% vs -12.95% for EDOC. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FHLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 4.81% return vs -12.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for EDOC.
FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.26% for EDOC.
EDOC tracks Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for EDOC and 0.08% for FHLC.
FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs -0.45), 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.
Find the right allocation for EDOC and FHLC
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