PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FHLC vs. IXJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) and IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - FHLC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index while IXJ tracks the S&P Global 1200 Health Care (Sector) Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FHLC returned 10.02%/yr vs 8.54%/yr for IXJ. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FHLC charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IXJ.

Performance

FHLC vs. IXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ). 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 0.11% return, which is significantly higher than IXJ's -1.76% return. Over the past 10 years, FHLC has outperformed IXJ with an annualized return of 10.02%, while IXJ has yielded a comparatively lower 8.54% annualized return.

FHLC

1D
1.34%
1M
2.70%
YTD
0.11%
6M
-0.37%
1Y
19.38%
3Y*
7.06%
5Y*
4.57%
10Y*
10.02%

IXJ

1D
1.45%
1M
0.89%
YTD
-1.76%
6M
-1.97%
1Y
13.71%
3Y*
5.44%
5Y*
4.16%
10Y*
8.54%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FHLC vs. IXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		0.11%15.42%2.48%2.58%-5.55%20.39%18.13%21.94%4.71%23.34%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		-1.76%14.99%0.55%3.62%-4.94%19.60%12.74%23.23%2.83%20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between FHLC and IXJ is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

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

0.96

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

0.95

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

0.96

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2013

0.95

The correlation between FHLC and IXJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

FHLC vs. IXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FHLC
IXJ

Healthcare

99.7%
98.5%

Technology

0.0%

-

Financial Services

0.0%

-

Industrials

0.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

0.5%

Energy

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

FHLC
99.7%
IXJ
98.5%

Technology

FHLC
0.0%
IXJ

-

Financial Services

FHLC
0.0%
IXJ

-

Industrials

FHLC
0.0%
IXJ

-

Basic Materials

FHLC

-

IXJ

-

Communication Services

FHLC

-

IXJ

-

Consumer Cyclical

FHLC

-

IXJ

-

Consumer Defensive

FHLC

-

IXJ
0.5%

Energy

FHLC

-

IXJ

-

Real Estate

FHLC

-

IXJ

-

Utilities

FHLC

-

IXJ

-

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 Global Healthcare ETF

Often compared with FHLC:
FHLC vs. VHTFHLC vs. XLVFHLC vs. FSPHXFHLC vs. IHIFHLC vs. FSHCXFHLC vs. VOOFHLC vs. FTEC
Often compared with IXJ:
IXJ vs. XLVIXJ vs. VHTIXJ vs. IHIIXJ vs. XDWH.LIXJ vs. IVVIXJ vs. HLTH.LIXJ vs. XT

Return for Risk

FHLC vs. IXJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
IXJ
IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
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. IXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ). 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.

FHLCIXJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.32
0.93

+0.40

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.04
1.49

+0.55

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.17

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.88

1.28

+0.60

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.64

3.02

+1.62

FHLC vs. IXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FHLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is higher than the IXJ Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FHLC and IXJ, 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. IXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FHLC drawdown since its inception was -28.76%, smaller than the maximum IXJ drawdown of -40.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FHLC and IXJ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FHLCIXJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.76%

-40.60%

+11.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.38%

-10.78%

+0.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.87%

-18.14%

+1.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.73%

-18.14%

+0.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.76%

-27.35%

-1.41%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.08%

-5.93%

+2.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.19%

-6.92%

+1.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.19%

4.56%

-0.37%

Volatility

FHLC vs. IXJ - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) have volatilities of 5.04% and 5.06%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FHLCIXJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.04%

5.06%

-0.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.54%

10.49%

+0.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.73%

14.87%

-0.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.03%

14.28%

+0.75%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.82%

15.67%

+1.15%

FHLC vs. IXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FHLC has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than IXJ's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FHLC vs. IXJ - Dividend Comparison

FHLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, less than IXJ's 1.52% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		1.38%1.40%1.51%1.40%1.30%1.16%1.45%1.18%1.38%1.38%1.40%2.07%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		1.52%1.40%1.50%1.38%1.17%1.12%1.27%1.42%2.11%1.46%1.73%2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.96, FHLC and IXJ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

IXJ has higher volatility (5.06%) compared to FHLC (5.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FHLC dropped -28.76% vs IXJ's -40.60%.

On 10-year performance, FHLC leads with 10.02% vs 8.54% for IXJ. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 10.02% return vs 8.54%. 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 0.40% for IXJ.

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.52%, compared with 1.38% for FHLC.

FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index, while IXJ tracks S&P Global 1200 Health Care (Sector) Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FHLC and 0.40% for IXJ.

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.93), 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 IXJ

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