PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FHLC vs. UNHW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) and UNHW (Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FHLC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index, while UNHW is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill Investments. FHLC is passively managed, while UNHW is actively managed. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FHLC charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for UNHW.

Performance

FHLC vs. UNHW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF (UNHW). 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 -3.90% return, which is significantly lower than UNHW's 15.08% return.

FHLC

1D
0.82%
1M
1.50%
YTD
-3.90%
6M
-4.11%
1Y
14.43%
3Y*
6.14%
5Y*
4.50%
10Y*
9.14%

UNHW

1D
0.06%
1M
2.06%
YTD
15.08%
6M
11.60%
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FHLC vs. UNHW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		-3.90%-0.22%
UNHW
Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF		15.08%-3.02%

Correlation

The correlation between FHLC and UNHW is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2025

0.35

FHLC vs. UNHW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FHLC
UNHW

Healthcare

99.6%
33.4%

Financial Services

0.1%

-

Technology

0.0%

-

Industrials

0.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

FHLC
99.6%
UNHW
33.4%

Financial Services

FHLC
0.1%
UNHW

-

Technology

FHLC
0.0%
UNHW

-

Industrials

FHLC
0.0%
UNHW

-

Basic Materials

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

Communication Services

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

Consumer Cyclical

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

Consumer Defensive

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

Energy

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

Real Estate

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

Utilities

FHLC

-

UNHW

-

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

Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF

Often compared with FHLC:
FHLC vs. VHTFHLC vs. XLVFHLC vs. FSPHXFHLC vs. IHIFHLC vs. FSHCXFHLC vs. IXJFHLC vs. VOO
Often compared with UNHW:
UNHW vs. NERDUNHW vs. ARMWUNHW vs. VHTUNHW vs. BBCUNHW vs. MUUUNHW vs. XTAPUNHW vs. QTAP

Return for Risk

FHLC vs. UNHW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
Martin Ratio Rank
UNHW
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. UNHW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF (UNHW). 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.

FHLCUNHWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.01

—

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.58

—

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

—

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.40

—

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.52

—

—

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FHLC vs. UNHW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

FHLCUNHWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.01

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.61

0.50

+0.10

Drawdowns

FHLC vs. UNHW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FHLC drawdown since its inception was -28.76%, smaller than the maximum UNHW drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FHLC and UNHW.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FHLCUNHWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.76%

-32.28%

+3.52%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.38%

—

—

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.87%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.73%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.76%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.96%

-7.06%

+0.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.19%

-12.48%

+7.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.11%

—

—

Volatility

FHLC vs. UNHW - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FHLCUNHWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.05%

—

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.11%

—

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.33%

49.81%

-35.48%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.97%

49.81%

-34.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.81%

49.81%

-33.00%

FHLC vs. UNHW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FHLC has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than UNHW's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

FHLC vs. UNHW - Dividend Comparison

FHLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, less than UNHW's 17.33% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		1.43%1.40%1.51%1.40%1.30%1.16%1.45%1.18%1.38%1.38%1.40%2.07%
UNHW
Roundhill UNH WeeklyPay ETF		17.33%2.81%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

FHLC and UNHW have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for UNHW.

UNHW has the higher dividend yield at 17.33%, compared with 1.43% for FHLC.

FHLC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while UNHW is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Roundhill Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FHLC and 0.99% for UNHW.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FHLC and UNHW

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