PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares S&P 500 Health Care Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUHC.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IUHC.L is traded in USD, while CSP1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CSP1.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IUHC.L achieves a -2.09% return, which is significantly lower than CSP1.L's 10.28% return. Over the past 10 years, IUHC.L has underperformed CSP1.L with an annualized return of 9.20%, while CSP1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.23% annualized return.


IUHC.L

1D
3.00%
1M
4.72%
YTD
-2.09%
6M
-0.45%
1Y
15.03%
3Y*
6.58%
5Y*
5.75%
10Y*
9.20%

CSP1.L

1D
0.10%
1M
4.65%
YTD
10.28%
6M
11.29%
1Y
27.90%
3Y*
22.09%
5Y*
13.73%
10Y*
15.23%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IUHC.L
iShares S&P 500 Health Care Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
-2.09%14.67%2.16%1.72%-2.63%27.58%11.93%20.60%4.44%22.21%
CSP1.L
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF
10.28%17.63%25.22%26.11%-18.77%29.88%17.14%31.49%-5.65%21.38%

Correlation

The correlation between IUHC.L and CSP1.L is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

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

0.38

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

0.53

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

0.62

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 24, 2015

0.63

Over the past year, the correlation between IUHC.L and CSP1.L has dropped to 0.23 - well below their long-term average of 0.63, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IUHC.L
CSP1.L

Healthcare

100.0%
8.4%

Basic Materials

-

1.7%

Communication Services

-

10.7%

Consumer Cyclical

-

9.9%

Consumer Defensive

-

4.7%

Energy

-

3.4%

Financial Services

-

11.3%

Industrials

-

7.9%

Real Estate

-

1.9%

Technology

-

38.0%

Utilities

-

2.2%

Healthcare

IUHC.L
100.0%
CSP1.L
8.4%

Basic Materials

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
1.7%

Communication Services

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
10.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
4.7%

Energy

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
3.4%

Financial Services

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
11.3%

Industrials

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
7.9%

Real Estate

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
1.9%

Technology

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
38.0%

Utilities

IUHC.L

-

CSP1.L
2.2%

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

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

IUHC.L
IUHC.L Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
IUHC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IUHC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
IUHC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
IUHC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
IUHC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

CSP1.L
CSP1.L Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Health Care Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUHC.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.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.


IUHC.LCSP1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.97

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.44

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.43

3.20

-1.76

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.57

13.82

-10.25

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IUHC.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is lower than the CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IUHC.L and CSP1.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IUHC.LCSP1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.00

2.48

-1.48

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.39

0.88

-0.49

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

0.94

-0.36

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.56

1.00

-0.43

Drawdowns

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IUHC.L drawdown since its inception was -27.44%, smaller than the maximum CSP1.L drawdown of -33.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IUHC.L and CSP1.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IUHC.LCSP1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.44%

-33.51%

+6.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.44%

-8.68%

-1.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.63%

-18.69%

+1.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.63%

-25.16%

+7.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.44%

-33.51%

+6.07%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.57%

-0.55%

-4.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.90%

-3.87%

-1.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.20%

2.01%

+2.19%

Volatility

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P 500 Health Care Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUHC.L) has a higher volatility of 4.89% compared to iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L) at 2.58%. This indicates that IUHC.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSP1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IUHC.LCSP1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.89%

2.58%

+2.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.81%

7.99%

+2.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.00%

11.21%

+3.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.82%

15.68%

-0.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.71%

16.12%

-0.41%

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IUHC.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than CSP1.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IUHC.L vs. CSP1.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IUHC.L nor CSP1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


IUHC.L and CSP1.L have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CSP1.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CSP1.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for IUHC.L.

IUHC.L is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while CSP1.L is S&P 500. IUHC.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Health Care Index, while CSP1.L tracks S&P 500 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IUHC.L and 0.07% for CSP1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IUHC.L and CSP1.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