HEAL.L vs. KURE.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HEAL.L (iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and KURE.L (KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds tracking the MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, from iShares and MLC Management respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, HEAL.L returned 20.32% vs -10.89% for KURE.L. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HEAL.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for KURE.L.

Performance

HEAL.L vs. KURE.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 KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD (KURE.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 higher than KURE.L's -10.68% 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*: —

KURE.L

• 1D: -2.87%
• 1M: -12.38%
• YTD: -10.68%
• 6M: -19.51%
• 1Y: -10.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HEAL.L iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.64%	23.83%
KURE.L KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD	-10.68%	11.52%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL.L and KURE.L is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2025	0.33

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

Sectors	HEAL.L	KURE.L
Healthcare	98.0%	98.3%
Technology	1.2%	0.0%
Industrials	0.5%	0.0%
Basic Materials	0.4%	0.8%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	0.9%
Communication Services	-	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.0%
Energy	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	0.0%
Utilities	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

HEAL.L vs. KURE.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

KURE.L

KURE.L Risk / Return Rank: 6
KURE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
KURE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
KURE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6
KURE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
KURE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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. KURE.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 KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD (KURE.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	KURE.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	-0.33	+1.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	-0.28	+2.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	0.97	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.61	-0.29	+1.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.96	-0.58	+4.54
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. KURE.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is higher than the KURE.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL.L and KURE.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	KURE.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	-0.33	+1.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.10	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	-0.01	+0.34

Drawdowns

HEAL.L vs. KURE.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL.L drawdown since its inception was -46.43%, which is greater than KURE.L's maximum drawdown of -30.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL.L and KURE.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEAL.L	KURE.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.43%	-30.31%	-16.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.59%	-30.31%	+17.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.70%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.00%	-30.31%	+10.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.60%	-11.49%	-7.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.12%	14.98%	-9.86%

Volatility

HEAL.L vs. KURE.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Healthcare Innovation UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (HEAL.L) is 5.13%, while KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD (KURE.L) has a volatility of 7.23%. This indicates that HEAL.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KURE.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HEAL.L	KURE.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.13%	7.23%	-2.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.28%	18.31%	-5.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.48%	26.92%	-9.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.87%	26.64%	-6.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.91%	26.64%	-6.73%

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

HEAL.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than KURE.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

HEAL.L vs. KURE.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

HEAL.L and KURE.L have a correlation of 0.33, 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 KURE.L?

On fees, HEAL.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

HEAL.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for KURE.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI World/Health Care NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and MLC Management. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for HEAL.L and 0.65% for KURE.L.