PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HEAL vs. IXJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HEAL vs. IXJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HEAL (Global X HealthTech ETF) and IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - HEAL tracks the Global X HealthTech Index while IXJ tracks the S&P Global Healthcare Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HEAL returned -14.71%/yr vs 4.02%/yr for IXJ. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HEAL charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.46%/yr for IXJ.

Performance

HEAL vs. IXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) and iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HEAL achieves a -15.57% return, which is significantly lower than IXJ's -5.26% return.

HEAL

1D
-1.16%
1M
-2.59%
YTD
-15.57%
6M
-20.78%
1Y
-22.08%
3Y*
-10.46%
5Y*
-14.71%
10Y*
—

IXJ

1D
0.39%
1M
0.34%
YTD
-5.26%
6M
-4.88%
1Y
9.30%
3Y*
4.42%
5Y*
4.02%
10Y*
7.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HEAL vs. IXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
HEAL
Global X HealthTech ETF		-15.57%-0.62%-2.87%-12.61%-29.99%-14.21%23.87%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		-5.26%14.99%0.55%3.62%-4.94%19.60%6.52%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL and IXJ 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

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2020

0.54

The correlation between HEAL and IXJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

HEAL vs. IXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
HEAL
IXJ

Healthcare

96.0%
98.9%

Technology

3.2%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

0.5%

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

HEAL
96.0%
IXJ
98.9%

Technology

HEAL
3.2%
IXJ

-

Basic Materials

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Communication Services

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Consumer Cyclical

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Consumer Defensive

HEAL

-

IXJ
0.5%

Energy

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Financial Services

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Industrials

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Real Estate

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Utilities

HEAL

-

IXJ

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Global X HealthTech ETF

iShares Global Healthcare ETF

Often compared with HEAL:
HEAL vs. HTECHEAL vs. ARKGHEAL vs. AIQHEAL vs. DFENHEAL vs. IUHC.LHEAL vs. IBBHEAL vs. IDNA
Often compared with IXJ:
IXJ vs. XLVIXJ vs. VHTIXJ vs. XDWH.LIXJ vs. IHIIXJ vs. FHLCIXJ vs. IVVIXJ vs. HLTH.L

Return for Risk

HEAL vs. IXJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HEAL
HEAL Risk / Return Rank: 22
Overall Rank
HEAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HEAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
Sortino Ratio Rank
HEAL Omega Ratio Rank: 22
Omega Ratio Rank
HEAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
Calmar Ratio Rank
HEAL Martin Ratio Rank: 11
Martin Ratio Rank
IXJ
IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank
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 vs. IXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) and iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ). 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.

HEALIXJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-1.01
0.64

-1.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-1.40
1.06

-2.46

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.85

1.12

-0.27

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.72

0.87

-1.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.46

2.11

-3.57

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 vs. IXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEAL Sharpe Ratio is -1.01, which is lower than the IXJ Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL and IXJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

HEALIXJDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-1.01

0.64

-1.65

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.56

0.28

-0.84

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.49

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.39

0.42

-0.81

Drawdowns

HEAL vs. IXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL drawdown since its inception was -65.76%, which is greater than IXJ's maximum drawdown of -40.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL and IXJ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HEALIXJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-65.76%

-40.60%

-25.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-30.71%

-10.78%

-19.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.78%

-18.14%

-17.64%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-60.36%

-18.14%

-42.22%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-27.35%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-63.55%

-9.27%

-54.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-43.02%

-6.92%

-36.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

15.13%

4.41%

+10.72%

Volatility

HEAL vs. IXJ - Volatility Comparison

Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) has a higher volatility of 5.21% compared to iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) at 3.75%. This indicates that HEAL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HEALIXJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.21%

3.75%

+1.46%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.69%

10.05%

+5.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.89%

14.55%

+7.34%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.37%

14.21%

+12.16%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.18%

15.67%

+10.51%

HEAL vs. IXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

HEAL has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IXJ's 0.46% expense ratio.

Dividends

HEAL vs. IXJ - Dividend Comparison

HEAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than IXJ's 1.47% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HEAL
Global X HealthTech ETF		0.39%0.33%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.03%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		1.47%1.40%1.50%1.38%1.17%1.12%1.27%1.42%2.11%1.46%1.73%2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

HEAL and IXJ 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.

HEAL has higher volatility (5.21%) compared to IXJ (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HEAL dropped -65.76% vs IXJ's -40.60%.

On 5-year performance, IXJ leads with 4.02% vs -14.71% for HEAL. On fees, IXJ is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IXJ has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IXJ has performed better with a 4.02% return vs -14.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IXJ is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for HEAL.

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.39% for HEAL.

HEAL tracks Global X HealthTech Index, while IXJ tracks S&P Global Healthcare Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for HEAL and 0.46% for IXJ.

IXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.64 vs -1.01), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HEAL and IXJ

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