PJP vs. CANC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PJP (Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF) and CANC (Tema Oncology ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. PJP is passively managed, while CANC is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PJP returned 13.31%/yr vs 107.76%/yr for CANC. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PJP charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CANC.

Performance

PJP vs. CANC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PJP achieves a 2.90% return, which is significantly lower than CANC's 4.82% return.

PJP

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 2.90%
• 6M: 2.29%
• 1Y: 34.73%
• 3Y*: 13.31%
• 5Y*: 7.62%
• 10Y*: 6.15%

CANC

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -3.73%
• YTD: 4.82%
• 6M: 3.86%
• 1Y: 47.37%
• 3Y*: 107.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PJP vs. CANC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PJP Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF	2.90%	27.98%	9.63%	-2.18%	-2.16%	5.12%
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	4.82%	42.92%	-5.37%	510.51%	-85.34%	-51.82%

Correlation

The correlation between PJP and CANC is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.46

Over the past year, PJP and CANC have become more correlated (0.73) than their long-term average of 0.46, meaning their price movements have been converging.

PJP vs. CANC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PJP	CANC
Healthcare	100.0%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PJP vs. CANC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PJP

PJP Risk / Return Rank: 64
PJP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
PJP Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
PJP Omega Ratio Rank: 57
PJP Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
PJP Martin Ratio Rank: 63

CANC

CANC Risk / Return Rank: 69
CANC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CANC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CANC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CANC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CANC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

PJP vs. CANC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). 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.

	PJP	CANC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	2.06	+0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	2.96	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.34	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	5.49	-1.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.55	14.62	-3.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PJP vs. CANC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PJP Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the CANC Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PJP and CANC, 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

	PJP	CANC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13	2.06	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	-0.04	+0.63

Drawdowns

PJP vs. CANC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PJP drawdown since its inception was -37.06%, smaller than the maximum CANC drawdown of -97.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PJP and CANC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PJP	CANC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.06%	-97.53%	+60.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.44%	-8.67%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.27%	-30.27%	+14.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.51%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.95%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.94%	-56.55%	+53.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.85%	-73.19%	+64.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.02%	3.25%	-0.23%

Volatility

PJP vs. CANC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP) is 5.33%, while Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) has a volatility of 6.26%. This indicates that PJP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CANC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PJP	CANC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	6.26%	-0.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.02%	16.69%	-4.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.38%	23.11%	-6.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.17%	280.27%	-264.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.39%	280.27%	-261.88%

PJP vs. CANC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PJP has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than CANC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PJP vs. CANC - Dividend Comparison

PJP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, more than CANC's 0.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	0.05%	0.06%	3.00%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PJP Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF	0.99%	0.98%	0.97%	1.01%	0.95%	0.81%	0.75%	0.77%	1.12%	0.65%	0.91%	5.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PJP and CANC in my portfolio?

PJP and CANC have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PJP or CANC?

CANC has higher volatility (6.26%) compared to PJP (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PJP dropped -37.06% vs CANC's -97.53%.

Which ETF is better, PJP or CANC?

On 3-year performance, CANC leads with 107.76% vs 13.31% for PJP. On fees, PJP is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, PJP has been the lower-risk option at 5.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PJP or CANC?

Over the 3-year period, CANC has performed better with a 107.76% return vs 13.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PJP or CANC?

PJP is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CANC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PJP or CANC?

PJP has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.05% for CANC.

What is the main difference between PJP and CANC?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Tema. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for PJP and 0.75% for CANC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PJP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 2.06), 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.