PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FHLC vs. EMXC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FHLC vs. EMXC

Last updated Jul 21, 2026
Documentation

FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) and EMXC (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FHLC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index, while EMXC is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FHLC returned 5.05%/yr vs 11.14%/yr for EMXC. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FHLC charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for EMXC.

Performance

FHLC vs. EMXC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FHLC achieves a 4.96% return, which is significantly lower than EMXC's 26.88% return.

FHLC

1D
-1.22%
1M
7.21%
6M
4.29%
YTD
4.96%
1Y
25.39%
3Y*
7.75%
5Y*
5.05%
10Y*
9.68%
ALL TIME*
10.60%

EMXC

1D
-0.12%
1M
-13.31%
6M
19.25%
YTD
26.88%
1Y
47.52%
3Y*
22.87%
5Y*
11.14%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
9.32%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FHLC vs. EMXC - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		4.96%15.42%2.48%2.58%-5.55%20.39%18.13%21.94%4.71%3.79%
EMXC
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF		26.88%35.14%2.68%18.96%-19.56%8.54%12.76%15.80%-12.96%7.16%

Correlation

The correlation between FHLC and EMXC is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.14

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.30

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2017

0.43

Over the past year, the correlation between FHLC and EMXC has dropped to 0.14 - well below their long-term average of 0.43, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FHLC vs. EMXC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FHLC
EMXC

Healthcare

99.6%
1.8%

Technology

0.1%
53.4%

Financial Services

0.0%
18.0%

Industrials

0.0%
6.5%

Basic Materials

-

5.5%

Communication Services

-

2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

-

3.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.4%

Energy

-

3.1%

Real Estate

-

0.8%

Utilities

-

1.8%

Healthcare

FHLC
99.6%
EMXC
1.8%

Technology

FHLC
0.1%
EMXC
53.4%

Financial Services

FHLC
0.0%
EMXC
18.0%

Industrials

FHLC
0.0%
EMXC
6.5%

Basic Materials

FHLC

-

EMXC
5.5%

Communication Services

FHLC

-

EMXC
2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

FHLC

-

EMXC
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

FHLC

-

EMXC
2.4%

Energy

FHLC

-

EMXC
3.1%

Real Estate

FHLC

-

EMXC
0.8%

Utilities

FHLC

-

EMXC
1.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF

Often compared with FHLC:
FHLC vs. VHTFHLC vs. XLVFHLC vs. FSPHXFHLC vs. IHIFHLC vs. FSHCXFHLC vs. IXJFHLC vs. VOO
Often compared with EMXC:
EMXC vs. XCEMEMXC vs. IEMGEMXC vs. VWOEMXC vs. EEMEMXC vs. VEXCEMXC vs. SPEMEMXC vs. VNM

Return for Risk

FHLC vs. EMXC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
EMXC
EMXC Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
EMXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMXC Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
EMXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMXC Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FHLC vs. EMXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC). 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.

FHLCEMXCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.66
1.80

-0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.57
2.30

+0.28

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.34

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.46

3.31

-0.86

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.06

10.67

-4.60

FHLC vs. EMXC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FHLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the EMXC Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FHLC and EMXC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FHLC vs. EMXC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FHLC drawdown since its inception was -28.76%, smaller than the maximum EMXC drawdown of -42.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FHLC and EMXC.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FHLCEMXCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.76%

-42.81%

+14.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.38%

-14.41%

+4.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.87%

-19.12%

+2.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.73%

-28.91%

+11.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.76%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.39%

-13.92%

+10.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.17%

-10.14%

+4.97%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.20%

4.47%

-0.27%

Volatility

FHLC vs. EMXC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) is 5.87%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) has a volatility of 11.80%. This indicates that FHLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMXC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FHLCEMXCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.87%

11.80%

-5.93%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.57%

24.94%

-13.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.35%

26.64%

-11.29%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.21%

18.75%

-3.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.87%

20.38%

-3.51%

FHLC vs. EMXC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FHLC has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than EMXC's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

FHLC vs. EMXC - Dividend Comparison

FHLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%, less than EMXC's 2.10% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMXC
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF		2.10%2.82%2.69%1.83%2.85%1.78%1.45%3.25%2.63%0.99%0.00%0.00%
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		1.32%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

FHLC and EMXC have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMXC has higher volatility (11.80%) compared to FHLC (5.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FHLC dropped -28.76% vs EMXC's -42.81%.

On 5-year performance, EMXC leads with 11.14% vs 5.05% for FHLC. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FHLC has been the lower-risk option at 5.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EMXC has performed better with a 11.14% return vs 5.05%. 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 0.49% for EMXC.

EMXC has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 1.32% for FHLC.

FHLC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while EMXC is Emerging Markets Equities. FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index, while EMXC tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FHLC and 0.49% for EMXC.

EMXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs 1.66), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FHLC and EMXC

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