HEAL.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HEAL.L (iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HEAL.L is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HEAL.L returned -1.96%/yr vs 7.61%/yr for EIMI.L. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HEAL.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

HEAL.L vs. EIMI.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 Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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 0.64% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 24.25% return.

HEAL.L

• 1D: 3.48%
• 1M: 4.82%
• YTD: 0.64%
• 6M: -0.41%
• 1Y: 20.32%
• 3Y*: 6.08%
• 5Y*: -1.96%
• 10Y*: —

EIMI.L

• 1D: -1.30%
• 1M: 4.51%
• YTD: 24.25%
• 6M: 27.21%
• 1Y: 49.41%
• 3Y*: 23.30%
• 5Y*: 7.61%
• 10Y*: 10.26%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HEAL.L iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.64%	18.42%	0.96%	3.11%	-24.00%	-6.52%	54.05%	12.43%	-3.45%	35.92%
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF	24.25%	32.16%	7.36%	11.03%	-19.67%	-0.65%	18.80%	16.37%	-14.17%	36.95%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL.L and EIMI.L is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2016	0.63

The correlation between HEAL.L and EIMI.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.63 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	HEAL.L	EIMI.L
Healthcare	98.0%	3.7%
Technology	1.2%	35.0%
Industrials	0.5%	8.9%
Basic Materials	0.4%	6.9%
Financial Services	0.2%	18.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	3.3%
Communication Services	-	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.6%
Energy	-	3.9%
Real Estate	-	1.7%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

HEAL.L vs. EIMI.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: 32
HEAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
HEAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
HEAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 31
HEAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
HEAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 28

EIMI.L

EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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. EIMI.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 Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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.

	HEAL.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	2.56	-1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	3.42	-1.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.47	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.61	3.88	-2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.96	14.02	-10.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current HEAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL.L and EIMI.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HEAL.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	2.56	-1.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.10	0.42	-0.51
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.36	-0.03

Drawdowns

HEAL.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL.L drawdown since its inception was -46.43%, which is greater than EIMI.L's maximum drawdown of -38.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL.L and EIMI.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEAL.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.43%	-38.73%	-7.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.59%	-12.66%	+0.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.46%	-17.44%	-4.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.70%	-35.50%	-8.20%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.00%	-2.64%	-17.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.60%	-14.04%	-4.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.12%	3.52%	+1.60%

Volatility

HEAL.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (HEAL.L) is 5.13%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 8.18%. This indicates that HEAL.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EIMI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HEAL.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.13%	8.18%	-3.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.28%	16.71%	-3.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.48%	19.23%	-1.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.87%	18.31%	+1.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.91%	19.15%	+0.76%

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

HEAL.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

HEAL.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

HEAL.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of 0.51, 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 EIMI.L?

On fees, EIMI.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

EIMI.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for HEAL.L.

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

HEAL.L is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. HEAL.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for HEAL.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.