PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
HLTW.L vs. AGED.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

HLTW.L vs. AGED.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor UCITS MSCI World Health Care TR C-USD (HLTW.L) and iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (AGED.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HLTW.L achieves a 2.77% return, which is significantly lower than AGED.L's 10.97% return.


HLTW.L

1D
0.45%
1M
5.55%
6M
1.72%
YTD
2.77%
1Y
19.26%
3Y*
7.05%
5Y*
4.60%
10Y*
8.21%

AGED.L

1D
-0.56%
1M
4.63%
6M
8.81%
YTD
10.97%
1Y
24.79%
3Y*
15.35%
5Y*
6.70%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
HLTW.L
Lyxor UCITS MSCI World Health Care TR C-USD
2.77%15.73%0.39%3.08%-5.66%20.58%12.94%22.85%2.03%19.53%
AGED.L
iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
10.97%26.75%7.86%9.03%-14.29%4.61%13.29%19.47%-13.28%22.24%

Correlation

The correlation between HLTW.L and AGED.L is 0.54, 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

0.54

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.57

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

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 8, 2016

0.67

The correlation between HLTW.L and AGED.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (1 year) to 0.67 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

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

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

HLTW.L
HLTW.L Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
HLTW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HLTW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
HLTW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
HLTW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
HLTW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

AGED.L
AGED.L Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
AGED.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AGED.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
AGED.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
AGED.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
AGED.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor UCITS MSCI World Health Care TR C-USD (HLTW.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.


HLTW.LAGED.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.47

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.29

+0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.35

2.94

-2.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.49

10.69

-7.20

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

The current HLTW.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.15, which is lower than the AGED.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HLTW.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

HLTW.L vs. AGED.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HLTW.L drawdown since its inception was -54.56%, 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 HLTW.L and AGED.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


HLTW.LAGED.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-54.56%

-40.12%

-14.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-54.56%

-8.40%

-46.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-54.56%

-16.38%

-38.18%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-54.56%

-27.68%

-26.88%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-54.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.78%

-1.21%

-0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.84%

-8.53%

+3.69%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.51%

2.31%

+3.20%

Volatility

HLTW.L vs. AGED.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor UCITS MSCI World Health Care TR C-USD (HLTW.L) has a higher volatility of 5.38% compared to iShares Ageing Population UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (AGED.L) at 3.66%. This indicates that HLTW.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


HLTW.LAGED.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.38%

3.66%

+1.72%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.66%

12.24%

-0.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

131.78%

15.34%

+116.44%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

60.42%

17.77%

+42.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

44.06%

17.74%

+26.32%

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

HLTW.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than AGED.L's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

HLTW.L vs. AGED.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


HLTW.L and AGED.L have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, HLTW.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HLTW.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for AGED.L.

HLTW.L is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while AGED.L is Global Equities. HLTW.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, while AGED.L tracks Stoxx Global Ageing Population Net USD Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HLTW.L and 0.40% for AGED.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HLTW.L and AGED.L

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