PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IHF vs. FHLC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IHF vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

IHF (iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - IHF tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Health Care Providers Index while FHLC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IHF returned 9.42%/yr vs 10.48%/yr for FHLC. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IHF charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

IHF vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IHF achieves a 14.04% return, which is significantly higher than FHLC's 2.60% return. Over the past 10 years, IHF has underperformed FHLC with an annualized return of 9.42%, while FHLC has yielded a comparatively higher 10.48% annualized return.

IHF

1D
1.78%
1M
9.46%
YTD
14.04%
6M
13.97%
1Y
16.53%
3Y*
3.56%
5Y*
1.11%
10Y*
9.42%

FHLC

1D
1.49%
1M
5.98%
YTD
2.60%
6M
1.62%
1Y
20.82%
3Y*
8.20%
5Y*
4.97%
10Y*
10.48%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IHF vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IHF
iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF		14.04%0.92%-7.90%-1.11%-7.11%24.46%17.67%22.34%9.56%25.45%
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		2.60%15.42%2.48%2.58%-5.55%20.39%18.13%21.94%4.71%23.34%

Correlation

The correlation between IHF and FHLC is 0.56, 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

0.56

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

0.65

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

0.74

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2013

0.76

The correlation between IHF and FHLC shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (1 year) to 0.76 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IHF vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IHF
FHLC

Healthcare

98.9%
99.7%

Financial Services

0.6%
0.0%

Technology

0.3%
0.0%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Industrials

-

0.0%

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

IHF
98.9%
FHLC
99.7%

Financial Services

IHF
0.6%
FHLC
0.0%

Technology

IHF
0.3%
FHLC
0.0%

Basic Materials

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Communication Services

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Consumer Cyclical

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Consumer Defensive

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Energy

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Industrials

IHF

-

FHLC
0.0%

Real Estate

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Utilities

IHF

-

FHLC

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF

Often compared with IHF:
IHF vs. XLVIHF vs. IHIIHF vs. VHTIHF vs. XHSIHF vs. FXHIHF vs. IDUIHF vs. MDEV
Often compared with FHLC:
FHLC vs. VHTFHLC vs. XLVFHLC vs. FSPHXFHLC vs. IHIFHLC vs. FSHCXFHLC vs. IXJFHLC vs. VOO

Return for Risk

IHF vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IHF
IHF Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
IHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
IHF Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
IHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
IHF Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank
FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
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.

IHF vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). 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.

IHFFHLCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.76
1.42

-0.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.07
2.17

-1.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.25

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.84

2.01

-1.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.95

4.98

-3.03

IHF vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IHF Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IHF and FHLC, 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

IHF vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IHF drawdown since its inception was -58.42%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IHF and FHLC.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IHFFHLCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.42%

-28.76%

-29.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.72%

-10.38%

-9.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.85%

-16.87%

-12.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.85%

-17.73%

-12.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.23%

-28.76%

-6.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.37%

-0.66%

-4.71%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.64%

-5.18%

-5.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.51%

4.19%

+4.32%

Volatility

IHF vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) have volatilities of 4.99% and 5.12%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IHFFHLCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.99%

5.12%

-0.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.18%

10.63%

+5.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.92%

14.77%

+7.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.18%

15.05%

+4.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.02%

16.83%

+4.19%

IHF vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IHF has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

IHF vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

IHF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, less than FHLC's 1.35% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		1.35%1.40%1.51%1.40%1.30%1.16%1.45%1.18%1.38%1.38%1.40%2.07%
IHF
iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF		0.96%1.05%0.86%0.79%0.74%0.56%0.53%0.58%4.01%0.19%0.25%0.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

IHF and FHLC have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FHLC has higher volatility (5.12%) compared to IHF (4.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IHF dropped -58.42% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

On 10-year performance, FHLC leads with 10.48% vs 9.42% for IHF. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, IHF has been the lower-risk option at 4.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 10.48% return vs 9.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for IHF.

FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 0.96% for IHF.

IHF tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Health Care Providers Index, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for IHF and 0.08% for FHLC.

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 vs 0.76), 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 IHF and FHLC

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