FMED vs. IBRN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FMED (Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF) and IBRN (iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. FMED is actively managed, while IBRN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FMED returned 1.97%/yr vs 14.72%/yr for IBRN. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMED charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBRN.

Performance

FMED vs. IBRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMED achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly lower than IBRN's 14.14% return.

FMED

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: 6.62%
• YTD: -2.44%
• 6M: -4.06%
• 1Y: 12.97%
• 3Y*: 1.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBRN

• 1D: 0.60%
• 1M: 6.49%
• YTD: 14.14%
• 6M: 14.25%
• 1Y: 71.08%
• 3Y*: 14.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FMED vs. IBRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	-2.44%	9.69%	2.29%	-3.59%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	14.14%	28.49%	-2.78%	3.09%

Correlation

The correlation between FMED and IBRN is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.76

The correlation between FMED and IBRN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMED vs. IBRN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMED	IBRN
Healthcare	97.6%	100.0%
Technology	0.9%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FMED vs. IBRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMED

FMED Risk / Return Rank: 19
FMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FMED Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FMED Martin Ratio Rank: 16

IBRN

IBRN Risk / Return Rank: 89
IBRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
IBRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
IBRN Omega Ratio Rank: 80
IBRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBRN Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FMED vs. IBRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) and iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN). 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.

	FMED	IBRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.68	2.80	-2.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.12	3.71	-2.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.43	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	8.12	-7.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.55	22.92	-21.37

FMED vs. IBRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMED Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the IBRN Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMED and IBRN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FMED vs. IBRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMED drawdown since its inception was -21.84%, smaller than the maximum IBRN drawdown of -35.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMED and IBRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMED	IBRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.84%	-35.38%	+13.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.33%	-8.80%	-9.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.84%	-35.38%	+13.54%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.48%	0.00%	-8.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.11%	-9.75%	+2.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.38%	3.11%	+5.27%

Volatility

FMED vs. IBRN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) is 6.57%, while iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF (IBRN) has a volatility of 8.17%. This indicates that FMED experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMED	IBRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.57%	8.17%	-1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.04%	19.20%	-4.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.27%	25.50%	-6.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.53%	25.36%	-6.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.53%	25.36%	-6.83%

FMED vs. IBRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMED has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IBRN's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMED vs. IBRN - Dividend Comparison

FMED has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBRN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.46%	0.00%
IBRN iShares Neuroscience and Healthcare ETF	0.87%	0.99%	0.40%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMED and IBRN in my portfolio?

FMED and IBRN have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMED or IBRN?

IBRN has higher volatility (8.17%) compared to FMED (6.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMED dropped -21.84% vs IBRN's -35.38%.

Which ETF is better, FMED or IBRN?

On 3-year performance, IBRN leads with 14.72% vs 1.97% for FMED. On fees, IBRN is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, FMED has been the lower-risk option at 6.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMED or IBRN?

Over the 3-year period, IBRN has performed better with a 14.72% return vs 1.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMED or IBRN?

IBRN is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FMED.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMED or IBRN?

IBRN has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.00% for FMED.

What is the main difference between FMED and IBRN?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FMED and 0.47% for IBRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 0.68), 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.