PSIL vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PSIL (AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. PSIL is actively managed, while FHLC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PSIL returned 9.55%/yr vs 6.14%/yr for FHLC. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PSIL charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

PSIL vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) 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, PSIL achieves a 20.15% return, which is significantly higher than FHLC's -3.90% return.

PSIL

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: 1.88%
• YTD: 20.15%
• 6M: 23.74%
• 1Y: 65.52%
• 3Y*: 9.55%
• 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)

PSIL vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PSIL AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF	20.15%	74.55%	-19.50%	-25.12%	-67.24%	-41.98%
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	-3.90%	15.42%	2.48%	2.58%	-5.55%	3.89%

Correlation

The correlation between PSIL and FHLC is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2021	0.32

PSIL vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PSIL	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

PSIL vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PSIL

PSIL Risk / Return Rank: 48
PSIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
PSIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
PSIL Omega Ratio Rank: 43
PSIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
PSIL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

PSIL vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) 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.

	PSIL	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	1.01	+0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	1.58	+0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.18	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	1.40	+1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.82	3.52	+3.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PSIL vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PSIL Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is higher than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PSIL 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

	PSIL	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.58	1.01	+0.56
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	-0.42	0.61	-1.02

Drawdowns

PSIL vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PSIL drawdown since its inception was -92.72%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSIL and FHLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PSIL	FHLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.72%	-28.76%	-63.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.38%	-10.38%	-10.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.62%	-16.87%	-47.75%
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	-76.63%	-6.96%	-69.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-76.76%	-5.19%	-71.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.63%	4.11%	+5.52%

Volatility

PSIL vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) has a higher volatility of 9.76% compared to Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) at 4.05%. This indicates that PSIL'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

	PSIL	FHLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.76%	4.05%	+5.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.89%	10.11%	+17.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.80%	14.33%	+27.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	63.15%	14.97%	+48.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	63.15%	16.81%	+46.34%

PSIL vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PSIL has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

PSIL vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

PSIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.32%, more than FHLC's 1.43% yield.

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%
PSIL AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF	8.32%	10.95%	1.49%	0.24%	2.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PSIL and FHLC in my portfolio?

PSIL and FHLC have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PSIL or FHLC?

PSIL has higher volatility (9.76%) compared to FHLC (4.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSIL dropped -92.72% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

Which ETF is better, PSIL or FHLC?

On 3-year performance, PSIL leads with 9.55% vs 6.14% for FHLC. 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, PSIL or FHLC?

Over the 3-year period, PSIL has performed better with a 9.55% return vs 6.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PSIL or FHLC?

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PSIL.

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

PSIL has the higher dividend yield at 8.32%, compared with 1.43% for FHLC.

What is the main difference between PSIL and FHLC?

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for PSIL and 0.08% for FHLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.58 vs 1.01), 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.