PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FHLC vs. ONEQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). 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 6.75% return, which is significantly lower than ONEQ's 10.15% return. Over the past 10 years, FHLC has underperformed ONEQ with an annualized return of 9.78%, while ONEQ has yielded a comparatively higher 18.56% annualized return.


FHLC

1D
-0.87%
1M
-1.15%
6M
6.97%
YTD
6.75%
1Y
27.92%
3Y*
9.06%
5Y*
5.04%
10Y*
9.78%
ALL TIME*
10.72%

ONEQ

1D
1.24%
1M
-1.60%
6M
9.04%
YTD
10.15%
1Y
24.38%
3Y*
22.19%
5Y*
12.76%
10Y*
18.56%
ALL TIME*
13.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$13.10M$18.62M$15.92M
$31.37M$30.53M$39.00M

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF
6.75%15.42%2.48%2.58%-5.55%20.39%18.13%21.94%4.71%23.34%
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
10.15%20.89%29.30%45.73%-32.12%22.11%44.87%38.01%-3.18%29.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FHLC and ONEQ is 0.10, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.10

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.30

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.47

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.58

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

0.63

Over the past year, the correlation between FHLC and ONEQ has dropped to 0.10 - well below their long-term average of 0.63, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FHLC
ONEQ

Healthcare

98.9%
5.1%

Technology

0.4%
53.3%

Financial Services

0.0%
2.8%

Industrials

0.0%
5.7%

Basic Materials

-

0.9%

Communication Services

-

14.3%

Consumer Cyclical

-

11.9%

Consumer Defensive

-

4.3%

Energy

-

0.5%

Real Estate

-

0.6%

Utilities

-

0.8%

Healthcare

FHLC
98.9%
ONEQ
5.1%

Technology

FHLC
0.4%
ONEQ
53.3%

Financial Services

FHLC
0.0%
ONEQ
2.8%

Industrials

FHLC
0.0%
ONEQ
5.7%

Basic Materials

FHLC

-

ONEQ
0.9%

Communication Services

FHLC

-

ONEQ
14.3%

Consumer Cyclical

FHLC

-

ONEQ
11.9%

Consumer Defensive

FHLC

-

ONEQ
4.3%

Energy

FHLC

-

ONEQ
0.5%

Real Estate

FHLC

-

ONEQ
0.6%

Utilities

FHLC

-

ONEQ
0.8%

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

FHLC vs. ONEQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank

ONEQ
ONEQ Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
ONEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ONEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
ONEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
ONEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
ONEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). 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.


FHLCONEQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.21

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.75

1.70

+1.05

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.86

5.69

+1.17

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FHLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is higher than the ONEQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FHLC and ONEQ, 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. ONEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FHLC drawdown since its inception was -28.76%, smaller than the maximum ONEQ drawdown of -55.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FHLC and ONEQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FHLCONEQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.76%

-55.09%

+26.33%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.38%

-12.64%

+2.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.87%

-24.09%

+7.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.73%

-35.23%

+17.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.76%

-35.23%

+6.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.78%

-5.98%

+3.20%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.16%

-7.93%

+2.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.16%

3.77%

+0.39%

Volatility

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) have volatilities of 5.57% and 5.72%, 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


FHLCONEQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.57%

5.72%

-0.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.69%

14.57%

-2.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.36%

18.30%

-2.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.25%

22.47%

-7.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.89%

21.82%

-4.93%

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FHLC has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than ONEQ's 0.21% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

FHLC vs. ONEQ - Dividend Comparison

FHLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%, more than ONEQ's 0.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF
1.30%1.40%1.51%1.40%1.30%1.16%1.45%1.18%1.38%1.38%1.40%2.07%
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
0.88%0.54%0.65%0.71%0.97%0.54%0.71%2.51%1.08%0.84%1.12%1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions


FHLC and ONEQ have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ONEQ has higher volatility (5.72%) compared to FHLC (5.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FHLC dropped -28.76% vs ONEQ's -55.09%.

On 10-year performance, ONEQ leads with 18.56% vs 9.78% for FHLC. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FHLC has been the lower-risk option at 5.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ONEQ has performed better with a 18.56% return vs 9.78%. 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 0.21% for ONEQ.

FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.88% for ONEQ.

FHLC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while ONEQ is Large Cap Growth Equities. FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index, while ONEQ tracks Nasdaq Composite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FHLC and 0.21% for ONEQ.

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.89 vs 1.17), 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 ONEQ

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