HELX vs. CANC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HELX (Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF) and CANC (Tema Oncology ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HELX returned 5.75%/yr vs 113.46%/yr for CANC. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HELX charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CANC.

Performance

HELX vs. CANC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF (HELX) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HELX achieves a -1.55% return, which is significantly lower than CANC's 7.29% return.

HELX

• 1D: 3.11%
• 1M: 5.81%
• YTD: -1.55%
• 6M: -4.90%
• 1Y: 33.84%
• 3Y*: 5.75%
• 5Y*: -3.93%
• 10Y*: —

CANC

• 1D: 2.35%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 7.29%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 48.14%
• 3Y*: 113.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HELX vs. CANC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
HELX Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF	-1.55%	26.34%	-5.32%	1.14%	-37.89%	-7.06%
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	7.29%	42.92%	-5.37%	510.51%	-85.34%	-51.82%

Correlation

The correlation between HELX and CANC is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.52

Over the past year, HELX and CANC have become more correlated (0.74) than their long-term average of 0.52, meaning their price movements have been converging.

HELX vs. CANC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HELX	CANC
Healthcare	96.5%	100.0%
Basic Materials	2.7%	-
Technology	0.9%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

HELX vs. CANC — Risk / Return Rank

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

HELX

HELX Risk / Return Rank: 42
HELX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
HELX Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
HELX Omega Ratio Rank: 44
HELX Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
HELX Martin Ratio Rank: 33

CANC

CANC Risk / Return Rank: 71
CANC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CANC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CANC Omega Ratio Rank: 56
CANC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CANC 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.

HELX vs. CANC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF (HELX) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). 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.

	HELX	CANC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.09	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	2.99	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.34	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.89	5.58	-3.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.88	14.75	-9.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HELX vs. CANC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HELX Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the CANC Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HELX and CANC, 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

	HELX	CANC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.61	2.09	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	-0.03	+0.28

Drawdowns

HELX vs. CANC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HELX drawdown since its inception was -58.75%, smaller than the maximum CANC drawdown of -97.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HELX and CANC.

Drawdown Indicators

	HELX	CANC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.75%	-97.53%	+38.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.01%	-8.67%	-9.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.48%	-30.27%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-58.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-38.22%	-55.52%	+17.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.32%	-73.18%	+38.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.95%	3.27%	+3.68%

Volatility

HELX vs. CANC - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF (HELX) has a higher volatility of 7.45% compared to Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) at 6.73%. This indicates that HELX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CANC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HELX	CANC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.45%	6.73%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.47%	16.70%	-0.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.07%	23.19%	-2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.15%	280.16%	-256.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.41%	280.16%	-252.75%

HELX vs. CANC - Expense Ratio Comparison

HELX has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CANC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

HELX vs. CANC - Dividend Comparison

HELX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, more than CANC's 0.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	0.05%	0.06%	3.00%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HELX Franklin Genomic Advancements ETF	0.40%	0.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.24%	0.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HELX and CANC in my portfolio?

HELX and CANC have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HELX or CANC?

HELX has higher volatility (7.45%) compared to CANC (6.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HELX dropped -58.75% vs CANC's -97.53%.

Which ETF is better, HELX or CANC?

On 3-year performance, CANC leads with 113.46% vs 5.75% for HELX. On fees, HELX is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CANC has been the lower-risk option at 6.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HELX or CANC?

Over the 3-year period, CANC has performed better with a 113.46% return vs 5.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HELX or CANC?

HELX is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CANC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HELX or CANC?

HELX has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.05% for CANC.

What is the main difference between HELX and CANC?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Tema. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for HELX and 0.75% for CANC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CANC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.61), 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.