EDOC vs. IHF
EDOC (Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF) and IHF (iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - EDOC tracks the Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net while IHF tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Health Care Providers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EDOC returned -14.64%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for IHF. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EDOC charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for IHF.
Performance
EDOC vs. IHF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EDOC achieves a -10.37% return, which is significantly lower than IHF's 11.55% return.
EDOC
- 1D
- 1.49%
- 1M
- 5.54%
- YTD
- -10.37%
- 6M
- -12.67%
- 1Y
- -16.13%
- 3Y*
- -8.12%
- 5Y*
- -14.64%
- 10Y*
- —
IHF
- 1D
- 0.74%
- 1M
- 5.23%
- YTD
- 11.55%
- 6M
- 12.02%
- 1Y
- 14.30%
- 3Y*
- 2.85%
- 5Y*
- 0.85%
- 10Y*
- 8.88%
EDOC vs. IHF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF | -10.37% | -0.62% | -2.87% | -12.61% | -29.99% | -14.21% | 16.89% |
IHF iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF | 11.55% | 0.92% | -7.90% | -1.11% | -7.11% | 24.46% | 14.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between EDOC and IHF is 0.52, 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 | 0.52 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2020 | 0.48 |
The correlation between EDOC and IHF shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (3 years) to 0.52 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. IHF — Risk / Return Rank
EDOC
IHF
EDOC vs. IHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC) and iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF). 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 | IHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.90 | 1.14 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.53 | 0.73 | -1.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.01 | 1.68 | -2.70 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EDOC vs. IHF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EDOC drawdown since its inception was -65.76%, which is greater than IHF's maximum drawdown of -58.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDOC and IHF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EDOC | IHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.76% | -58.42% | -7.34% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.71% | -19.72% | -10.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.78% | -29.85% | -5.93% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -60.36% | -29.85% | -30.51% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.23% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -61.31% | -7.44% | -53.87% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -43.20% | -10.64% | -32.56% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.98% | 8.51% | +7.47% |
Volatility
EDOC vs. IHF - Volatility Comparison
Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC) has a higher volatility of 7.26% compared to iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF) at 5.27%. This indicates that EDOC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EDOC | IHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.26% | 5.27% | +1.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.63% | 16.10% | +0.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.43% | 21.90% | +0.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 26.46% | 19.17% | +7.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.28% | 21.02% | +5.26% |
EDOC vs. IHF - Expense Ratio Comparison
EDOC has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than IHF's 0.43% expense ratio.
Dividends
EDOC vs. IHF - Dividend Comparison
EDOC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than IHF's 0.98% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF | 0.37% | 0.33% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IHF iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF | 0.98% | 1.05% | 0.86% | 0.79% | 0.74% | 0.56% | 0.53% | 0.58% | 4.01% | 0.19% | 0.25% | 0.20% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EDOC and IHF have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EDOC has higher volatility (7.26%) compared to IHF (5.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDOC dropped -65.76% vs IHF's -58.42%.
On 5-year performance, IHF leads with 0.85% vs -14.64% for EDOC. On fees, IHF is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, IHF has been the lower-risk option at 5.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IHF has performed better with a 0.85% return vs -14.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IHF is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for EDOC.
IHF has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.37% for EDOC.
EDOC tracks Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net, while IHF tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Health Care Providers Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for EDOC and 0.43% for IHF.
IHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.66 vs -0.73), 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 IHF
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