HRTS vs. AGNG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HRTS (Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF) and AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. HRTS is actively managed, while AGNG is passively managed. Over the past year, HRTS returned 20.97% vs 9.81% for AGNG. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HRTS charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for AGNG.

Performance

HRTS vs. AGNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) and Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HRTS achieves a -5.70% return, which is significantly lower than AGNG's -4.79% return.

HRTS

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -0.90%
• YTD: -5.70%
• 6M: -5.48%
• 1Y: 20.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AGNG

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -2.10%
• YTD: -4.79%
• 6M: -5.36%
• 1Y: 9.81%
• 3Y*: 8.25%
• 5Y*: 3.96%
• 10Y*: 8.76%

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

HRTS vs. AGNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HRTS Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF	-5.70%	23.93%	-4.30%	14.97%
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	-4.79%	20.01%	7.03%	8.35%

Correlation

The correlation between HRTS and AGNG is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2023	0.75

The correlation between HRTS and AGNG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

HRTS vs. AGNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HRTS	AGNG
Healthcare	100.0%	90.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	9.2%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

HRTS vs. AGNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

HRTS

HRTS Risk / Return Rank: 36
HRTS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
HRTS Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
HRTS Omega Ratio Rank: 33
HRTS Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
HRTS Martin Ratio Rank: 32

AGNG

AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 20
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 20
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

HRTS vs. AGNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) and Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG). 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.

	HRTS	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	0.72	+0.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.99	1.12	+0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.13	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.91	0.86	+1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.83	2.34	+2.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HRTS vs. AGNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HRTS Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is higher than the AGNG Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HRTS and AGNG, 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

	HRTS	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	0.72	+0.59
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.26	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.53	+0.02

Drawdowns

HRTS vs. AGNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HRTS drawdown since its inception was -25.81%, smaller than the maximum AGNG drawdown of -30.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HRTS and AGNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	HRTS	AGNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.81%	-30.58%	+4.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.01%	-11.45%	+0.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.48%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.14%	-11.09%	+1.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.02%	-5.95%	-3.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.36%	4.20%	+0.16%

Volatility

HRTS vs. AGNG - Volatility Comparison

Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) has a higher volatility of 4.44% compared to Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) at 3.87%. This indicates that HRTS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HRTS	AGNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.44%	3.87%	+0.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.26%	10.00%	+1.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.03%	13.62%	+2.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.07%	15.22%	+3.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.07%	17.13%	+1.94%

HRTS vs. AGNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

HRTS has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than AGNG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

HRTS vs. AGNG - Dividend Comparison

HRTS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, more than AGNG's 0.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	0.92%	0.88%	0.83%	0.96%	0.49%	0.72%	0.36%	0.83%	1.00%	1.04%	0.45%
HRTS Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF	1.42%	1.34%	1.63%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HRTS and AGNG in my portfolio?

HRTS and AGNG have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HRTS or AGNG?

HRTS has higher volatility (4.44%) compared to AGNG (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HRTS dropped -25.81% vs AGNG's -30.58%.

Which ETF is better, HRTS or AGNG?

On 1-year performance, HRTS leads with 20.97% vs 9.81% for AGNG. On fees, AGNG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, AGNG has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HRTS or AGNG?

Over the 1-year period, HRTS has performed better with a 20.97% return vs 9.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HRTS or AGNG?

AGNG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for HRTS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HRTS or AGNG?

HRTS has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.92% for AGNG.

What is the main difference between HRTS and AGNG?

They also come from different issuers: Tema and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for HRTS and 0.50% for AGNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HRTS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.31 vs 0.72), 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.