IXJ vs. FHLC

Last updated Aug 2, 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 8.22%/yr vs 9.78%/yr for FHLC. Their 0.95 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. 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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IXJ achieves a 3.85% return, which is significantly lower than FHLC's 6.75% return. Over the past 10 years, IXJ has underperformed FHLC with an annualized return of 8.22%, while FHLC has yielded a comparatively higher 9.78% annualized return.

IXJ

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: -1.26%
• 6M: 2.41%
• YTD: 3.85%
• 1Y: 21.78%
• 3Y*: 7.07%
• 5Y*: 4.53%
• 10Y*: 8.22%
• ALL TIME*: 7.37%

FHLC

• 1D: -0.87%
• 1M: -1.15%
• 6M: 6.97%
• YTD: 6.75%
• 1Y: 27.92%
• 3Y*: 9.06%
• 5Y*: 5.04%
• 10Y*: 9.78%
• ALL TIME*: 10.72%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	$13.10M	$18.62M	$15.92M
IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF	$16.06M	$16.61M	$23.38M

IXJ vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF	3.85%	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	6.75%	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 0.97 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	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 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

IXJ vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IXJ	FHLC
Healthcare	99.2%	98.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	-
Technology	0.4%	0.4%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

IXJ vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IXJ

IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 61
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 62
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 45

FHLC

FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 77
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 78
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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.

	IXJ	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	1.89	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.38	2.91	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.33	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	2.75	-0.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.99	6.86	-1.87

IXJ vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXJ Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is comparable to the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.89. 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.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	IXJ	FHLC	Difference
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	-2.52%	-2.78%	+0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.90%	-5.16%	-1.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.52%	4.16%	+0.36%

Volatility

IXJ vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) have volatilities of 5.66% and 5.57%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	IXJ	FHLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.66%	5.57%	+0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.61%	11.69%	-0.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.38%	15.36%	+0.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.50%	15.25%	-0.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.74%	16.89%	-1.15%

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 1.44%, more than FHLC's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	1.30%	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	1.44%	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 FHLC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, 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.

Which is riskier, IXJ or FHLC?

IXJ has higher volatility (5.66%) compared to FHLC (5.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXJ dropped -40.60% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

Which ETF is better, IXJ or FHLC?

On 10-year performance, FHLC leads with 9.78% vs 8.22% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, IXJ or FHLC?

Over the 10-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 9.78% return vs 8.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IXJ or FHLC?

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for IXJ.

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

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 1.30% for FHLC.

What is the main difference between IXJ and 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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.89 vs 1.50), 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.