HRTS vs. SBIO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HRTS (Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF) and SBIO (ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. HRTS is actively managed, while SBIO is passively managed. Over the past year, HRTS returned 20.97% vs 65.41% for SBIO. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HRTS charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for SBIO.

Performance

HRTS vs. SBIO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO). 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 SBIO's -0.39% return.

HRTS

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

SBIO

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: -7.56%
• YTD: -0.39%
• 6M: 3.05%
• 1Y: 65.41%
• 3Y*: 17.80%
• 5Y*: 2.68%
• 10Y*: 8.02%

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

HRTS vs. SBIO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HRTS Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF	-5.70%	23.93%	-4.30%	14.97%
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	-0.39%	55.07%	3.81%	30.94%

Correlation

The correlation between HRTS and SBIO is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2023	0.77

The correlation between HRTS and SBIO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

HRTS vs. SBIO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HRTS	SBIO
Healthcare	100.0%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-0.0%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

HRTS vs. SBIO — 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

SBIO

SBIO Risk / Return Rank: 72
SBIO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
SBIO Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
SBIO Omega Ratio Rank: 59
SBIO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
SBIO Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. SBIO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO). 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	SBIO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	2.24	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.99	3.10	-1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.36	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.91	5.19	-3.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.83	15.57	-10.74
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. SBIO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HRTS Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is lower than the SBIO Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HRTS and SBIO, 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	SBIO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	2.24	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.08	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.21	+0.34

Drawdowns

HRTS vs. SBIO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HRTS drawdown since its inception was -25.81%, smaller than the maximum SBIO drawdown of -63.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HRTS and SBIO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HRTS	SBIO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.81%	-63.06%	+37.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.01%	-12.66%	+1.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-42.44%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-53.10%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.14%	-16.79%	+7.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.02%	-28.45%	+19.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.36%	4.22%	+0.14%

Volatility

HRTS vs. SBIO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Tema Obesity & Cardiometabolic ETF (HRTS) is 4.44%, while ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) has a volatility of 9.48%. This indicates that HRTS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SBIO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HRTS	SBIO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.44%	9.48%	-5.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.26%	22.70%	-11.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.03%	29.42%	-13.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.07%	33.56%	-14.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.07%	33.17%	-14.10%

HRTS vs. SBIO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

HRTS vs. SBIO - Dividend Comparison

HRTS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, while SBIO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
SBIO ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF	0.00%	0.00%	3.55%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%	2.79%	1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HRTS and SBIO in my portfolio?

HRTS and SBIO have a correlation of 0.69, 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 SBIO?

SBIO has higher volatility (9.48%) compared to HRTS (4.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HRTS dropped -25.81% vs SBIO's -63.06%.

Which ETF is better, HRTS or SBIO?

On 1-year performance, SBIO leads with 65.41% vs 20.97% for HRTS. On fees, SBIO is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, HRTS has been the lower-risk option at 4.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HRTS or SBIO?

Over the 1-year period, SBIO has performed better with a 65.41% return vs 20.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HRTS or SBIO?

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

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

HRTS has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.00% for SBIO.

What is the main difference between HRTS and SBIO?

They also come from different issuers: Tema and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for HRTS and 0.50% for SBIO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SBIO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.31), 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.