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

Performance

FHLC vs. RYCEY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Rolls-Royce Holdings plc (RYCEY). 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 0.03% return, which is significantly lower than RYCEY's 12.43% return. Over the past 10 years, FHLC has outperformed RYCEY with an annualized return of 9.76%, while RYCEY has yielded a comparatively lower 8.49% annualized return.


FHLC

1D
-0.13%
1M
5.86%
YTD
0.03%
6M
0.58%
1Y
16.58%
3Y*
7.18%
5Y*
4.76%
10Y*
9.76%

RYCEY

1D
1.79%
1M
15.31%
YTD
12.43%
6M
19.66%
1Y
48.50%
3Y*
113.04%
5Y*
61.46%
10Y*
8.49%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FHLC vs. RYCEY - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF
0.03%15.42%2.48%2.58%-5.55%20.39%18.13%21.94%4.71%23.34%
RYCEY
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc
12.43%123.64%88.21%253.27%-33.95%2.53%-82.05%-12.69%-7.35%40.70%

Correlation

The correlation between FHLC and RYCEY is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.26

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

0.27

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

0.28

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

0.29

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2014

0.30

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. RYCEY — Risk / Return Rank

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

FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

RYCEY
RYCEY Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
RYCEY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RYCEY Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
RYCEY Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
RYCEY Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
RYCEY Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
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. RYCEY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Rolls-Royce Holdings plc (RYCEY). 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.


FHLCRYCEYDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.23

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.55

2.13

-0.58

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.86

5.98

-2.12

FHLC vs. RYCEY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FHLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is comparable to the RYCEY Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FHLC and RYCEY, 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. RYCEY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FHLC drawdown since its inception was -28.76%, smaller than the maximum RYCEY drawdown of -99.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FHLC and RYCEY.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FHLCRYCEYDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.76%

-99.07%

+70.31%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.38%

-21.75%

+11.37%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.87%

-23.37%

+6.50%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.73%

-62.01%

+44.28%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.76%

-94.64%

+65.88%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.15%

-77.68%

+74.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.19%

-84.15%

+78.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.16%

7.73%

-3.57%

Volatility

FHLC vs. RYCEY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) is 4.87%, while Rolls-Royce Holdings plc (RYCEY) has a volatility of 12.00%. This indicates that FHLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RYCEY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FHLCRYCEYDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.87%

12.00%

-7.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.50%

32.70%

-22.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.69%

37.88%

-23.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.02%

43.48%

-28.46%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.84%

49.35%

-32.51%

Dividends

FHLC vs. RYCEY - Dividend Comparison

FHLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more than RYCEY's 0.72% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF
1.37%1.40%1.51%1.40%1.30%1.16%1.45%1.18%1.38%1.38%1.40%2.07%
RYCEY
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc
0.72%0.86%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%5.51%1.56%1.32%1.55%4.19%14.44%

Frequently Asked Questions


FHLC and RYCEY have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RYCEY has higher volatility (12.00%) compared to FHLC (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FHLC dropped -28.76% vs RYCEY's -99.07%.

RYCEY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 1.09), 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 RYCEY

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