LGHT vs. XBI

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

LGHT (Langar Global HealthTech ETF) and XBI (SPDR S&P Biotech ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LGHT is actively managed, while XBI is passively managed. Over the past year, LGHT returned -12.37% vs 75.74% for XBI. Their 0.53 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LGHT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for XBI.

Performance

LGHT vs. XBI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGHT achieves a -10.75% return, which is significantly lower than XBI's 24.69% return.

LGHT

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -0.65%
• 6M: -6.77%
• YTD: -10.75%
• 1Y: -12.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -4.87%

XBI

• 1D: 3.10%
• 1M: -5.35%
• 6M: 19.10%
• YTD: 24.69%
• 1Y: 75.74%
• 3Y*: 23.46%
• 5Y*: 3.36%
• 10Y*: 9.15%
• ALL TIME*: 11.75%

*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)
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	$40.81K	$22.59K	$17.37K
XBI SPDR S&P Biotech ETF	$1.15B	$1.31B	$1.30B

LGHT vs. XBI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LGHT Langar Global HealthTech ETF	-10.75%	-1.66%	0.23%
XBI SPDR S&P Biotech ETF	24.69%	35.89%	-3.65%

Correlation

The correlation between LGHT and XBI is 0.41, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 10, 2024	0.53

The correlation between LGHT and XBI shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (1 year) to 0.53 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LGHT vs. XBI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGHT	XBI
Healthcare	90.0%	99.5%
Technology	8.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	0.2%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.5%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LGHT vs. XBI — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGHT

LGHT Risk / Return Rank: 4
LGHT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
LGHT Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
LGHT Omega Ratio Rank: 4
LGHT Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
LGHT Martin Ratio Rank: 5

XBI

XBI Risk / Return Rank: 93
XBI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
XBI Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
XBI Omega Ratio Rank: 89
XBI Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
XBI Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

LGHT vs. XBI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) and SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI). 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.

	LGHT	XBI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.61	2.81	-3.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.75	3.62	-4.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.91	1.43	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.49	7.24	-7.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.91	19.95	-20.86

LGHT vs. XBI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGHT Sharpe Ratio is -0.61, which is lower than the XBI Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGHT and XBI, 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

LGHT vs. XBI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGHT drawdown since its inception was -28.60%, smaller than the maximum XBI drawdown of -63.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGHT and XBI.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGHT	XBI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.60%	-63.89%	+35.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.57%	-10.51%	-15.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-32.99%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-54.00%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.76%	-12.13%	-7.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.60%	-20.87%	+12.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.69%	3.81%	+9.88%

Volatility

LGHT vs. XBI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Langar Global HealthTech ETF (LGHT) is 8.02%, while SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) has a volatility of 8.49%. This indicates that LGHT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGHT	XBI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.02%	8.49%	-0.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.64%	21.55%	-4.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.28%	27.11%	-6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.45%	32.36%	-12.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.45%	31.95%	-12.50%

LGHT vs. XBI - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGHT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than XBI's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGHT vs. XBI - Dividend Comparison

LGHT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XBI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XBI SPDR S&P Biotech ETF	0.38%	0.37%	0.15%	0.02%	0.00%	0.04%	0.20%	0.00%	0.28%	0.24%	0.26%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGHT and XBI in my portfolio?

LGHT and XBI have a correlation of 0.41, 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 XBI?

XBI has higher volatility (8.49%) compared to LGHT (8.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGHT dropped -28.60% vs XBI's -63.89%.

Which ETF is better, LGHT or XBI?

On 1-year performance, XBI leads with 75.74% vs -12.37% for LGHT. On fees, XBI is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, LGHT has been the lower-risk option at 8.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGHT or XBI?

Over the 1-year period, XBI has performed better with a 75.74% return vs -12.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGHT or XBI?

XBI is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for LGHT.

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

XBI has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.00% for LGHT.

What is the main difference between LGHT and XBI?

They also come from different issuers: Langar and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for LGHT and 0.35% for XBI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XBI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs -0.61), 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.