IXJ vs. CANC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) and CANC (Tema Oncology ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. IXJ is passively managed, while CANC is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IXJ returned 4.42%/yr vs 107.71%/yr for CANC. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IXJ charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CANC.

Performance

IXJ vs. CANC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IXJ achieves a -5.26% return, which is significantly lower than CANC's 4.74% return.

IXJ

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: -5.26%
• 6M: -4.88%
• 1Y: 9.30%
• 3Y*: 4.42%
• 5Y*: 4.02%
• 10Y*: 7.66%

CANC

• 1D: -2.40%
• 1M: -2.10%
• YTD: 4.74%
• 6M: 5.93%
• 1Y: 49.25%
• 3Y*: 107.71%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IXJ vs. CANC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF	-5.26%	14.99%	0.55%	3.62%	-4.94%	8.50%
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	4.74%	42.92%	-5.37%	510.51%	-85.34%	-51.82%

Correlation

The correlation between IXJ and CANC is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.42

Over the past year, IXJ and CANC have become more correlated (0.67) than their long-term average of 0.41, meaning their price movements have been converging.

IXJ vs. CANC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IXJ	CANC
Healthcare	98.9%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

IXJ vs. CANC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IXJ

IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 19
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 18
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 19

CANC

CANC Risk / Return Rank: 70
CANC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
CANC Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
CANC Omega Ratio Rank: 55
CANC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CANC Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

IXJ vs. CANC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). 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.

	IXJ	CANC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	2.14	-1.50
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.06	3.05	-1.99
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.35	-0.23
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.87	5.75	-4.88
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.11	15.57	-13.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IXJ vs. CANC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXJ Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the CANC Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IXJ and CANC, 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

	IXJ	CANC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64	2.14	-1.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	-0.04	+0.45

Drawdowns

IXJ vs. CANC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IXJ drawdown since its inception was -40.60%, smaller than the maximum CANC drawdown of -97.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXJ and CANC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IXJ	CANC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.60%	-97.53%	+56.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.78%	-8.67%	-2.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.14%	-30.27%	+12.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.27%	-56.58%	+47.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.92%	-73.20%	+66.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.41%	3.20%	+1.21%

Volatility

IXJ vs. CANC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) is 3.75%, while Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) has a volatility of 6.55%. This indicates that IXJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CANC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IXJ	CANC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	6.55%	-2.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.05%	16.79%	-6.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.55%	23.11%	-8.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.21%	280.39%	-266.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.67%	280.39%	-264.72%

IXJ vs. CANC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IXJ has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than CANC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

IXJ vs. CANC - Dividend Comparison

IXJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than CANC's 0.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	0.05%	0.06%	3.00%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF	1.47%	1.40%	1.50%	1.38%	1.17%	1.12%	1.27%	1.42%	2.11%	1.46%	1.73%	2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IXJ and CANC in my portfolio?

IXJ and CANC have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IXJ or CANC?

CANC has higher volatility (6.55%) compared to IXJ (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXJ dropped -40.60% vs CANC's -97.53%.

Which ETF is better, IXJ or CANC?

On 3-year performance, CANC leads with 107.71% vs 4.42% for IXJ. On fees, IXJ is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IXJ has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IXJ or CANC?

Over the 3-year period, CANC has performed better with a 107.71% return vs 4.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IXJ or CANC?

IXJ is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CANC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IXJ or CANC?

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.05% for CANC.

What is the main difference between IXJ and CANC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Tema. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IXJ and 0.75% for CANC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CANC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 0.64), 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.