RSPH vs. EDOC

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

RSPH (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF) and EDOC (Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - RSPH tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Health Care -SEC while EDOC tracks the Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RSPH returned 3.49%/yr vs -12.35%/yr for EDOC. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RSPH charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for EDOC.

Performance

RSPH vs. EDOC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) and Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPH achieves a 7.48% return, which is significantly higher than EDOC's -2.48% return.

RSPH

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 6.24%
• 6M: 3.99%
• YTD: 7.48%
• 1Y: 18.40%
• 3Y*: 5.25%
• 5Y*: 3.49%
• 10Y*: 8.80%

EDOC

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 10.17%
• 6M: -8.11%
• YTD: -2.48%
• 1Y: -7.84%
• 3Y*: -7.38%
• 5Y*: -12.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

RSPH vs. EDOC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	7.48%	9.52%	-0.94%	3.95%	-9.40%	23.19%	8.60%
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF	-2.48%	-0.62%	-2.87%	-12.61%	-29.99%	-14.21%	16.89%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPH and EDOC is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2020	0.65

The correlation between RSPH and EDOC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RSPH vs. EDOC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPH

RSPH Risk / Return Rank: 39
RSPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
RSPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
RSPH Omega Ratio Rank: 39
RSPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
RSPH Martin Ratio Rank: 36

EDOC

EDOC Risk / Return Rank: 6
EDOC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
EDOC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
EDOC Omega Ratio Rank: 6
EDOC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
EDOC Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

RSPH vs. EDOC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) and Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC). 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.

	RSPH	EDOC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	-0.35	+1.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	-0.36	+2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	0.96	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.70	-0.26	+1.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.27	-0.48	+4.75

RSPH vs. EDOC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPH Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is higher than the EDOC Sharpe Ratio of -0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPH and EDOC, 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

RSPH vs. EDOC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPH drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, smaller than the maximum EDOC drawdown of -65.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPH and EDOC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPH	EDOC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-65.76%	+25.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-30.71%	+19.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	-35.78%	+18.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.95%	-59.14%	+37.19%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.22%	-57.90%	+56.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.12%	-43.33%	+37.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.33%	16.31%	-11.98%

Volatility

RSPH vs. EDOC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) is 5.28%, while Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF (EDOC) has a volatility of 7.18%. This indicates that RSPH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EDOC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPH	EDOC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.28%	7.18%	-1.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.47%	17.10%	-5.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.26%	22.68%	-6.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.46%	26.59%	-10.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.74%	26.29%	-8.55%

RSPH vs. EDOC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPH has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than EDOC's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPH vs. EDOC - Dividend Comparison

RSPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.68%, more than EDOC's 0.25% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EDOC Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health ETF	0.25%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	0.68%	0.70%	0.71%	0.66%	0.64%	0.50%	0.51%	0.54%	0.53%	0.47%	0.48%	0.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSPH and EDOC in my portfolio?

RSPH and EDOC have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPH or EDOC?

EDOC has higher volatility (7.18%) compared to RSPH (5.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPH dropped -40.49% vs EDOC's -65.76%.

Which ETF is better, RSPH or EDOC?

On 5-year performance, RSPH leads with 3.49% vs -12.35% for EDOC. On fees, RSPH is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RSPH has been the lower-risk option at 5.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPH or EDOC?

Over the 5-year period, RSPH has performed better with a 3.49% return vs -12.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPH or EDOC?

RSPH is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for EDOC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSPH or EDOC?

RSPH has the higher dividend yield at 0.68%, compared with 0.25% for EDOC.

What is the main difference between RSPH and EDOC?

RSPH tracks S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Health Care -SEC, while EDOC tracks Solactive Telemedicine & Digital Health Index- TR Net. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPH and 0.68% for EDOC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs -0.35), 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.