EKG vs. IBRN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EKG (First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF) and IBRN (iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - EKG tracks the NASDAQ Lux Health Tech Index while IBRN tracks the NYSE FactSet Global Neuro Biopharma and MedTech Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EKG returned -0.66%/yr vs 11.68%/yr for IBRN. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EKG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBRN.

Performance

EKG vs. IBRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EKG achieves a -10.11% return, which is significantly lower than IBRN's 6.25% return.

EKG

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 2.98%
• YTD: -10.11%
• 6M: -12.99%
• 1Y: -0.93%
• 3Y*: -0.66%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBRN

• 1D: 1.56%
• 1M: -1.78%
• YTD: 6.25%
• 6M: 10.50%
• 1Y: 52.08%
• 3Y*: 11.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EKG vs. IBRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EKG First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF	-10.11%	11.89%	6.53%	-0.11%	0.67%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	6.25%	28.49%	-2.78%	0.92%	5.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EKG and IBRN 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	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2022	0.61

The correlation between EKG and IBRN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

EKG vs. IBRN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EKG	IBRN
Healthcare	94.9%	100.0%
Technology	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

EKG vs. IBRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

EKG

EKG Risk / Return Rank: 8
EKG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
EKG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
EKG Omega Ratio Rank: 8
EKG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
EKG Martin Ratio Rank: 8

IBRN

IBRN Risk / Return Rank: 69
IBRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IBRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
IBRN Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IBRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
IBRN Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

EKG vs. IBRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). 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.

	EKG	IBRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	2.07	-2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.09	2.92	-2.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.33	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	5.95	-5.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.10	14.63	-14.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EKG vs. IBRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EKG Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the IBRN Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EKG and IBRN, 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

	EKG	IBRN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04	2.07	-2.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.13	0.39	-0.52

Drawdowns

EKG vs. IBRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EKG drawdown since its inception was -43.82%, which is greater than IBRN's maximum drawdown of -35.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EKG and IBRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	EKG	IBRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.82%	-35.38%	-8.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.09%	-8.80%	-13.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.49%	-35.38%	+0.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.78%	-4.82%	-15.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-9.83%	-12.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.73%	3.57%	+6.16%

Volatility

EKG vs. IBRN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) is 7.09%, while iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) has a volatility of 7.69%. This indicates that EKG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EKG	IBRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.09%	7.69%	-0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.42%	19.08%	-2.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.57%	25.36%	-3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.07%	25.32%	+1.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.07%	25.32%	+1.75%

EKG vs. IBRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

EKG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IBRN's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

EKG vs. IBRN - Dividend Comparison

EKG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBRN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.93%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EKG First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	0.93%	0.99%	0.40%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EKG and IBRN in my portfolio?

EKG and IBRN 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.

Which is riskier, EKG or IBRN?

IBRN has higher volatility (7.69%) compared to EKG (7.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EKG dropped -43.82% vs IBRN's -35.38%.

Which ETF is better, EKG or IBRN?

On 3-year performance, IBRN leads with 11.68% vs -0.66% for EKG. On fees, IBRN is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, EKG has been the lower-risk option at 7.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EKG or IBRN?

Over the 3-year period, IBRN has performed better with a 11.68% return vs -0.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EKG or IBRN?

IBRN is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EKG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EKG or IBRN?

IBRN has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.00% for EKG.

What is the main difference between EKG and IBRN?

EKG tracks NASDAQ Lux Health Tech Index, while IBRN tracks NYSE FactSet Global Neuro Biopharma and MedTech Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EKG and 0.47% for IBRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs -0.04), 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.