PINK vs. AGNG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PINK (Simplify Health Care ETF) and AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. PINK is actively managed, while AGNG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PINK returned 14.42%/yr vs 8.25%/yr for AGNG. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

PINK vs. AGNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Health Care ETF (PINK) and Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PINK achieves a 2.39% return, which is significantly higher than AGNG's -4.79% return.

PINK

• 1D: 1.24%
• 1M: 7.28%
• YTD: 2.39%
• 6M: 2.11%
• 1Y: 31.27%
• 3Y*: 14.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AGNG

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -2.10%
• YTD: -4.79%
• 6M: -5.36%
• 1Y: 9.81%
• 3Y*: 8.25%
• 5Y*: 3.96%
• 10Y*: 8.76%

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

PINK vs. AGNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PINK Simplify Health Care ETF	2.39%	24.34%	8.81%	3.80%	-4.41%	12.20%
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	-4.79%	20.01%	7.03%	9.65%	-8.61%	0.59%

Correlation

The correlation between PINK and AGNG is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2021	0.78

The correlation between PINK and AGNG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

PINK vs. AGNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PINK	AGNG
Healthcare	93.1%	90.8%
Industrials	6.9%	-
Financial Services	0.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	9.2%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PINK vs. AGNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PINK

PINK Risk / Return Rank: 44
PINK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
PINK Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
PINK Omega Ratio Rank: 46
PINK Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
PINK Martin Ratio Rank: 36

AGNG

AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 20
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 20
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

PINK vs. AGNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Health Care ETF (PINK) and Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG). 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.

	PINK	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	0.72	+1.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.50	1.12	+1.37
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.13	+0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	0.86	+1.01
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.62	2.34	+3.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PINK vs. AGNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PINK Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is higher than the AGNG Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PINK and AGNG, 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

	PINK	AGNG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.73	0.72	+1.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.26	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	0.53	+0.03

Drawdowns

PINK vs. AGNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PINK drawdown since its inception was -18.77%, smaller than the maximum AGNG drawdown of -30.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PINK and AGNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	PINK	AGNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.77%	-30.58%	+11.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.81%	-11.45%	-5.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.77%	-14.48%	-4.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.84%	-11.09%	+8.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.75%	-5.95%	-0.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.57%	4.20%	+1.37%

Volatility

PINK vs. AGNG - Volatility Comparison

Simplify Health Care ETF (PINK) has a higher volatility of 4.36% compared to Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) at 3.87%. This indicates that PINK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PINK	AGNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	3.87%	+0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.44%	10.00%	+3.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.17%	13.62%	+4.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.57%	15.22%	+2.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.57%	17.13%	+0.44%

PINK vs. AGNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both PINK and AGNG have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

PINK vs. AGNG - Dividend Comparison

PINK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than AGNG's 0.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	0.92%	0.88%	0.83%	0.96%	0.49%	0.72%	0.36%	0.83%	1.00%	1.04%	0.45%
PINK Simplify Health Care ETF	0.67%	0.68%	0.32%	0.94%	0.42%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PINK and AGNG in my portfolio?

PINK and AGNG have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PINK or AGNG?

PINK has higher volatility (4.36%) compared to AGNG (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PINK dropped -18.77% vs AGNG's -30.58%.

Which ETF is better, PINK or AGNG?

On 3-year performance, PINK leads with 14.42% vs 8.25% for AGNG. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, AGNG has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PINK or AGNG?

Over the 3-year period, PINK has performed better with a 14.42% return vs 8.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PINK or AGNG?

PINK and AGNG have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PINK or AGNG?

AGNG has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.67% for PINK.

What is the main difference between PINK and AGNG?

They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Global X.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PINK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 0.72), 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.