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 Healthcare Providers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EDOC returned -13.37%/yr vs 1.81%/yr for IHF. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EDOC charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for IHF.
Performance
EDOC vs. IHF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EDOC achieves a -7.90% return, which is significantly lower than IHF's 18.08% return.
EDOC
- 1D
- 0.07%
- 1M
- -7.11%
- 6M
- -5.44%
- YTD
- -7.90%
- 1Y
- -12.88%
- 3Y*
- -8.61%
- 5Y*
- -13.37%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -9.61%
IHF
- 1D
- -0.65%
- 1M
- -1.95%
- 6M
- 24.31%
- YTD
- 18.08%
- 1Y
- 39.67%
- 3Y*
- 3.50%
- 5Y*
- 1.81%
- 10Y*
- 9.49%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.83%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $245.64K | $221.54K | $214.19K | |
| $33.12M | $27.16M | $26.59M |
EDOC vs. IHF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF | -7.90% | -0.62% | -2.87% | -12.61% | -29.99% | -14.21% | 16.89% |
IHF iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF | 18.08% | 0.92% | -7.90% | -1.11% | -7.11% | 24.46% | 14.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between EDOC and IHF is 0.51, 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. | 0.51 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.42 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer 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 has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.42 to 0.51 - 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. 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 | -2.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.92 | 1.34 | -0.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.45 | 1.88 | -2.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.82 | 5.15 | -5.97 |
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 | -34.56% | -29.85% | -4.71% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -59.14% | -29.85% | -29.29% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.23% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -60.24% | -2.98% | -57.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -43.48% | -10.59% | -32.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.87% | 7.18% | +9.69% |
Volatility
EDOC vs. IHF - Volatility Comparison
Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC) has a higher volatility of 6.34% compared to iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF) at 4.88%. 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 | 6.34% | 4.88% | +1.46% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.24% | 12.93% | +4.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.70% | 20.62% | +2.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 26.63% | 19.29% | +7.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.25% | 21.04% | +5.21% |
EDOC vs. IHF - Expense Ratio Comparison
EDOC has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than IHF's 0.38% expense ratio.
Dividends
EDOC vs. IHF - Dividend Comparison
EDOC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%, less than IHF's 0.93% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF | 0.27% | 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 | 0.93% | 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 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EDOC has higher volatility (6.34%) compared to IHF (4.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDOC dropped -65.76% vs IHF's -58.42%.
On 5-year performance, IHF leads with 1.81% vs -13.37% for EDOC. On fees, IHF is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, IHF has been the lower-risk option at 4.88%. 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 1.81% return vs -13.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IHF is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for EDOC.
IHF has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.27% for EDOC.
EDOC tracks Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net, while IHF tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Healthcare Providers Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for EDOC and 0.38% for IHF.
IHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs -0.61), 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