HEAL.L vs. AGED.L

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

HEAL.L (iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and AGED.L (iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - HEAL.L is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, while AGED.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Stoxx Global Ageing Population Net USD Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HEAL.L returned -1.58%/yr vs 6.55%/yr for AGED.L. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.40% expense ratio.

Performance

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (HEAL.L) and iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (AGED.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HEAL.L achieves a 5.99% return, which is significantly lower than AGED.L's 10.76% return.

HEAL.L

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: 6.94%
• 6M: 3.13%
• YTD: 5.99%
• 1Y: 24.32%
• 3Y*: 7.29%
• 5Y*: -1.58%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.71%

AGED.L

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 5.26%
• 6M: 9.96%
• YTD: 10.76%
• 1Y: 24.27%
• 3Y*: 15.22%
• 5Y*: 6.55%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.85%

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

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HEAL.L iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	5.99%	18.53%	0.93%	3.11%	-24.00%	-6.52%	54.05%	12.48%	-3.57%	36.03%
AGED.L iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	10.76%	26.75%	7.86%	9.03%	-14.29%	4.61%	13.29%	19.47%	-13.28%	22.24%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL.L and AGED.L is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 8, 2016	0.82

The correlation between HEAL.L and AGED.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HEAL.L	AGED.L
Healthcare	97.9%	48.4%
Technology	1.1%	0.3%
Industrials	0.5%	0.1%
Financial Services	0.2%	43.2%
Real Estate	0.2%	0.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	0.4%
Basic Materials	0.1%	0.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	5.9%
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

HEAL.L

HEAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 49
HEAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
HEAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
HEAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 48
HEAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
HEAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 39

AGED.L

AGED.L Risk / Return Rank: 70
AGED.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
AGED.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
AGED.L Omega Ratio Rank: 64
AGED.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
AGED.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (HEAL.L) and iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (AGED.L). 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.

	HEAL.L	AGED.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	1.58	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	2.34	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.29	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.92	2.88	-0.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.54	10.46	-5.92

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is comparable to the AGED.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL.L and AGED.L, 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

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL.L drawdown since its inception was -46.38%, which is greater than AGED.L's maximum drawdown of -40.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL.L and AGED.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEAL.L	AGED.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.38%	-40.12%	-6.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.59%	-8.40%	-4.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.45%	-16.38%	-5.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.65%	-27.68%	-15.97%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.70%	-1.40%	-14.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.57%	-8.53%	-10.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.35%	2.31%	+3.04%

Volatility

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (HEAL.L) has a higher volatility of 5.03% compared to iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (AGED.L) at 3.68%. This indicates that HEAL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGED.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HEAL.L	AGED.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.03%	3.68%	+1.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.70%	12.17%	+1.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.86%	15.33%	+2.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.99%	17.75%	+2.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.91%	17.74%	+2.17%

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both HEAL.L and AGED.L have an expense ratio of 0.40%.

Dividends

HEAL.L vs. AGED.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither HEAL.L nor AGED.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HEAL.L and AGED.L in my portfolio?

HEAL.L and AGED.L have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HEAL.L or AGED.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.40% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HEAL.L or AGED.L?

HEAL.L and AGED.L have the same expense ratio: 0.40% per year.

What is the main difference between HEAL.L and AGED.L?

HEAL.L is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while AGED.L is Global Equities. HEAL.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, while AGED.L tracks Stoxx Global Ageing Population Net USD Index.