RSPH vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RSPH (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - RSPH tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Health Care -SEC while FHLC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RSPH returned 7.86%/yr vs 9.14%/yr for FHLC. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSPH charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

RSPH vs. FHLC - 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 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, RSPH achieves a -3.49% return, which is significantly higher than FHLC's -3.90% return. Over the past 10 years, RSPH has underperformed FHLC with an annualized return of 7.86%, while FHLC has yielded a comparatively higher 9.14% annualized return.

RSPH

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: 1.35%
• YTD: -3.49%
• 6M: -3.00%
• 1Y: 8.54%
• 3Y*: 2.93%
• 5Y*: 2.46%
• 10Y*: 7.86%

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)

RSPH vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	-3.49%	9.52%	-0.94%	3.95%	-9.40%	23.19%	18.83%	25.48%	-0.66%	23.70%
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	-3.90%	15.42%	2.48%	2.58%	-5.55%	20.39%	18.13%	21.94%	4.71%	23.34%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPH and FHLC is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.95

The correlation between RSPH and FHLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSPH vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPH	FHLC
Healthcare	98.5%	99.6%
Financial Services	0.1%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	0.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RSPH vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPH

RSPH Risk / Return Rank: 18
RSPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
RSPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
RSPH Omega Ratio Rank: 17
RSPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
RSPH Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

RSPH vs. FHLC - 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 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.

	RSPH	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	1.01	-0.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	1.58	-0.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.18	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	1.40	-0.64
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.91	3.52	-1.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSPH vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPH Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPH 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

	RSPH	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56	1.01	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15	0.30	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.44	0.55	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.61	-0.03

Drawdowns

RSPH vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPH drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPH and FHLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPH	FHLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-28.76%	-11.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-10.38%	-0.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	-16.87%	-0.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.95%	-17.73%	-4.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.44%	-28.76%	-1.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.58%	-6.96%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.14%	-5.19%	-0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.31%	4.11%	+0.20%

Volatility

RSPH vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) is 3.82%, while Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) has a volatility of 4.05%. This indicates that RSPH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FHLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPH	FHLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.82%	4.05%	-0.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.44%	10.11%	+0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.45%	14.33%	+1.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.26%	14.97%	+1.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.72%	16.81%	+0.91%

RSPH vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPH has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPH vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

RSPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less 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%
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	0.73%	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 FHLC in my portfolio?

RSPH and FHLC have a correlation of 0.85, 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 FHLC?

FHLC has higher volatility (4.05%) compared to RSPH (3.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPH dropped -40.49% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

Which ETF is better, RSPH or FHLC?

On 10-year performance, FHLC leads with 9.14% vs 7.86% for RSPH. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, RSPH has been the lower-risk option at 3.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPH or FHLC?

Over the 10-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 9.14% return vs 7.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPH or FHLC?

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPH.

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

FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.73% for RSPH.

What is the main difference between RSPH and FHLC?

RSPH tracks S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Health Care -SEC, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPH and 0.08% for FHLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FHLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs 0.56), 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.