LGHT vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LGHT (Langar Global HealthTech ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LGHT is actively managed, while FHLC is passively managed. Over the past year, LGHT returned -22.28% vs 14.43% for FHLC. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LGHT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

LGHT vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) 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, LGHT achieves a -19.52% return, which is significantly lower than FHLC's -3.90% return.

LGHT

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: -2.36%
• YTD: -19.52%
• 6M: -20.39%
• 1Y: -22.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FHLC

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 1.50%
• YTD: -3.90%
• 6M: -4.11%
• 1Y: 14.43%
• 3Y*: 6.14%
• 5Y*: 4.50%
• 10Y*: 9.14%

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

LGHT vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	-19.52%	-1.66%	-0.13%
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	-3.90%	15.42%	-0.52%

Correlation

The correlation between LGHT and FHLC is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.66

The correlation between LGHT and FHLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGHT vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGHT	FHLC
Healthcare	100.0%	99.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	0.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LGHT vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGHT

LGHT Risk / Return Rank: 1
LGHT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
LGHT Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
LGHT Omega Ratio Rank: 1
LGHT Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
LGHT Martin Ratio Rank: 0

FHLC

FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 27
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

LGHT vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) 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.

	LGHT	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.22	1.01	-2.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.66	1.58	-3.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.81	1.18	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.87	1.40	-2.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-2.04	3.52	-5.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGHT vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGHT Sharpe Ratio is -1.22, which is lower than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGHT 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LGHT	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.22	1.01	-2.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.30	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.55	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.50	0.61	-1.10

Drawdowns

LGHT vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGHT drawdown since its inception was -28.60%, roughly equal to the maximum FHLC drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGHT and FHLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGHT	FHLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.60%	-28.76%	+0.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.57%	-10.38%	-15.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.87%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.73%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.64%	-6.96%	-20.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.57%	-5.19%	-2.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.92%	4.11%	+6.81%

Volatility

LGHT vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) has a higher volatility of 5.98% compared to Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) at 4.05%. This indicates that LGHT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FHLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGHT	FHLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.98%	4.05%	+1.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.88%	10.11%	+3.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.29%	14.33%	+3.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.89%	14.97%	+3.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.89%	16.81%	+2.08%

LGHT vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGHT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGHT vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

LGHT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FHLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	1.43%	1.40%	1.51%	1.40%	1.30%	1.16%	1.45%	1.18%	1.38%	1.38%	1.40%	2.07%
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGHT and FHLC in my portfolio?

LGHT and FHLC have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGHT or FHLC?

LGHT has higher volatility (5.98%) compared to FHLC (4.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGHT dropped -28.60% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

Which ETF is better, LGHT or FHLC?

On 1-year performance, FHLC leads with 14.43% vs -22.28% for LGHT. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FHLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGHT or FHLC?

Over the 1-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 14.43% return vs -22.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGHT or FHLC?

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for LGHT.

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

FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.00% for LGHT.

What is the main difference between LGHT and FHLC?

They also come from different issuers: Langar and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for LGHT and 0.08% for FHLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs -1.22), 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.