PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IXJ vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - IXJ tracks the S&P Global 1200 Health Care (Sector) Capped Index while FHLC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IXJ returned 8.39%/yr vs 9.88%/yr for FHLC. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IXJ charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

IXJ vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) 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, IXJ achieves a -3.17% return, which is significantly lower than FHLC's -1.22% return. Over the past 10 years, IXJ has underperformed FHLC with an annualized return of 8.39%, while FHLC has yielded a comparatively higher 9.88% annualized return.

IXJ

1D
0.55%
1M
-0.56%
YTD
-3.17%
6M
-3.06%
1Y
12.38%
3Y*
4.93%
5Y*
3.99%
10Y*
8.39%

FHLC

1D
0.90%
1M
1.34%
YTD
-1.22%
6M
-1.95%
1Y
17.82%
3Y*
6.59%
5Y*
4.42%
10Y*
9.88%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IXJ vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		-3.17%14.99%0.55%3.62%-4.94%19.60%12.74%23.23%2.83%20.44%
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		-1.22%15.42%2.48%2.58%-5.55%20.39%18.13%21.94%4.71%23.34%

Correlation

The correlation between IXJ and FHLC is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

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

0.96

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

0.95

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

0.96

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

0.95

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

0.95

The correlation between IXJ and FHLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

IXJ vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IXJ
FHLC

Healthcare

98.5%
99.7%

Consumer Defensive

0.5%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

0.0%

Industrials

-

0.0%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

0.0%

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

IXJ
98.5%
FHLC
99.7%

Consumer Defensive

IXJ
0.5%
FHLC

-

Basic Materials

IXJ

-

FHLC

-

Communication Services

IXJ

-

FHLC

-

Consumer Cyclical

IXJ

-

FHLC

-

Energy

IXJ

-

FHLC

-

Financial Services

IXJ

-

FHLC
0.0%

Industrials

IXJ

-

FHLC
0.0%

Real Estate

IXJ

-

FHLC

-

Technology

IXJ

-

FHLC
0.0%

Utilities

IXJ

-

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 Global Healthcare ETF

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF

Often compared with IXJ:
IXJ vs. XLVIXJ vs. VHTIXJ vs. IHIIXJ vs. XDWH.LIXJ vs. IVVIXJ vs. HLTH.LIXJ vs. XT
Often compared with FHLC:
FHLC vs. VHTFHLC vs. XLVFHLC vs. FSPHXFHLC vs. IHIFHLC vs. FSHCXFHLC vs. VOOFHLC vs. FTEC

Return for Risk

IXJ vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IXJ
IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank
FHLC
FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
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.

IXJ vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

IXJFHLCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.84
1.22

-0.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.37
1.90

-0.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.22

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.15

1.72

-0.57

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.73

4.27

-1.53

IXJ vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXJ Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IXJ 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

IXJ vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IXJ drawdown since its inception was -40.60%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXJ and FHLC.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IXJFHLCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.60%

-28.76%

-11.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.78%

-10.38%

-0.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.14%

-16.87%

-1.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.14%

-17.73%

-0.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.35%

-28.76%

+1.41%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.28%

-4.36%

-2.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.92%

-5.19%

-1.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.54%

4.19%

+0.35%

Volatility

IXJ vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) have volatilities of 4.90% and 4.92%, 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

IXJFHLCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.90%

4.92%

-0.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.39%

10.46%

-0.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.83%

14.70%

+0.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.27%

15.02%

-0.75%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.71%

16.85%

-1.14%

IXJ vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IXJ has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

IXJ vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

IXJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than FHLC's 1.40% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FHLC
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF		1.40%1.40%1.51%1.40%1.30%1.16%1.45%1.18%1.38%1.38%1.40%2.07%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		1.54%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

With a correlation of 0.96, IXJ and FHLC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

FHLC has higher volatility (4.92%) compared to IXJ (4.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXJ dropped -40.60% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

On 10-year performance, FHLC leads with 9.88% vs 8.39% for IXJ. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. Their volatility is very similar. 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 9.88% return vs 8.39%. 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 0.40% for IXJ.

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 1.40% for FHLC.

IXJ tracks S&P Global 1200 Health Care (Sector) Capped Index, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for IXJ and 0.08% for FHLC.

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 0.84), 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 IXJ 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