MID vs. JHAC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MID (American Century Mid Cap Growth Impact ETF) and JHAC (John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MID is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by American Century, while JHAC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by John Hancock. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MID returned 6.76% vs 8.86% for JHAC. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MID charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for JHAC.

Performance

MID vs. JHAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Century Mid Cap Growth Impact ETF (MID) and John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF (JHAC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MID achieves a 5.47% return, which is significantly higher than JHAC's -0.25% return.

MID

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: 3.85%
• YTD: 5.47%
• 6M: 2.66%
• 1Y: 6.76%
• 3Y*: 14.41%
• 5Y*: 6.25%
• 10Y*: —

JHAC

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: 0.13%
• YTD: -0.25%
• 6M: -2.95%
• 1Y: 8.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MID vs. JHAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MID American Century Mid Cap Growth Impact ETF	5.47%	8.22%	19.40%	19.52%
JHAC John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF	-0.25%	3.33%	23.65%	15.41%

Correlation

The correlation between MID and JHAC is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2023	0.84

The correlation between MID and JHAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

MID vs. JHAC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MID	JHAC
Industrials	25.5%	6.5%
Technology	21.9%	27.5%
Healthcare	18.7%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	23.9%
Energy	7.3%	4.9%
Financial Services	6.1%	15.9%
Utilities	4.4%	-
Basic Materials	2.3%	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	1.5%
Communication Services	-	8.9%
Real Estate	-	3.5%

Return for Risk

MID vs. JHAC — Risk / Return Rank

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

MID

MID Risk / Return Rank: 15
MID Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
MID Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
MID Omega Ratio Rank: 14
MID Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
MID Martin Ratio Rank: 16

JHAC

JHAC Risk / Return Rank: 18
JHAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
JHAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
JHAC Omega Ratio Rank: 19
JHAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
JHAC Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

MID vs. JHAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Century Mid Cap Growth Impact ETF (MID) and John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF (JHAC). 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.

	MID	JHAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.41	0.67	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	1.00	-0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.12	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.49	0.58	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.45	1.82	-0.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MID vs. JHAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MID Sharpe Ratio is 0.41, which is lower than the JHAC Sharpe Ratio of 0.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MID and JHAC, 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

	MID	JHAC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41	0.67	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.93	-0.52

Drawdowns

MID vs. JHAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MID drawdown since its inception was -40.15%, which is greater than JHAC's maximum drawdown of -24.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MID and JHAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	MID	JHAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.15%	-24.43%	-15.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.89%	-15.24%	+1.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.15%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.48%	-3.96%	+3.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.44%	-3.91%	-9.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.66%	4.87%	-0.21%

Volatility

MID vs. JHAC - Volatility Comparison

American Century Mid Cap Growth Impact ETF (MID) has a higher volatility of 4.88% compared to John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF (JHAC) at 3.04%. This indicates that MID's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than JHAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MID	JHAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.88%	3.04%	+1.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.00%	9.71%	+3.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.73%	13.28%	+3.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.63%	17.45%	+6.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.92%	17.45%	+6.47%

MID vs. JHAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

MID has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than JHAC's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

MID vs. JHAC - Dividend Comparison

MID's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than JHAC's 0.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
JHAC John Hancock Fundamental All Cap Core ETF	0.58%	0.58%	0.66%	0.17%
MID American Century Mid Cap Growth Impact ETF	0.15%	0.18%	0.17%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MID and JHAC in my portfolio?

MID and JHAC have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MID or JHAC?

MID has higher volatility (4.88%) compared to JHAC (3.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MID dropped -40.15% vs JHAC's -24.43%.

Which ETF is better, MID or JHAC?

On 1-year performance, JHAC leads with 8.86% vs 6.76% for MID. On fees, MID is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, JHAC has been the lower-risk option at 3.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MID or JHAC?

Over the 1-year period, JHAC has performed better with a 8.86% return vs 6.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MID or JHAC?

MID is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for JHAC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MID or JHAC?

JHAC has the higher dividend yield at 0.58%, compared with 0.15% for MID.

What is the main difference between MID and JHAC?

MID is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while JHAC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: American Century and John Hancock. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for MID and 0.72% for JHAC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JHAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.67 vs 0.41), 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.