PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in iShares MSCI World Health Care Sector Advanced UCITS ETF USD Accumulating (WHCA.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

WHCA.AS is traded in EUR, while R1GR.AS is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the R1GR.AS values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WHCA.AS achieves a -2.07% return, which is significantly lower than R1GR.AS's 7.67% return.


WHCA.AS

1D
2.82%
1M
3.91%
YTD
-2.07%
6M
-1.38%
1Y
7.44%
3Y*
0.74%
5Y*
10Y*

R1GR.AS

1D
-0.31%
1M
5.93%
YTD
7.67%
6M
6.91%
1Y
23.23%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
WHCA.AS
iShares MSCI World Health Care Sector Advanced UCITS ETF USD Accumulating
-2.07%2.44%0.95%2.37%
R1GR.AS
iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF
7.67%3.62%43.99%6.17%

Correlation

The correlation between WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.16

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023

0.27

The correlation between WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (1 year) to 0.27 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

WHCA.AS
WHCA.AS Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
WHCA.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
WHCA.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
WHCA.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
WHCA.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
WHCA.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank

R1GR.AS
R1GR.AS Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
R1GR.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
R1GR.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
R1GR.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
R1GR.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI World Health Care Sector Advanced UCITS ETF USD Accumulating (WHCA.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). 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.


WHCA.ASR1GR.ASDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.91

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.10

1.26

-0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.68

1.56

-0.88

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.57

4.39

-2.82

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WHCA.AS Sharpe Ratio is 0.53, which is lower than the R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


WHCA.ASR1GR.ASDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.53

1.44

-0.91

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.13

1.15

-1.02

Drawdowns

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WHCA.AS drawdown since its inception was -22.19%, smaller than the maximum R1GR.AS drawdown of -27.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


WHCA.ASR1GR.ASDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.19%

-27.06%

+4.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.86%

-14.67%

+3.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.64%

-1.39%

-8.25%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.96%

-4.95%

-2.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.72%

5.26%

-0.54%

Volatility

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI World Health Care Sector Advanced UCITS ETF USD Accumulating (WHCA.AS) has a higher volatility of 5.00% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) at 4.11%. This indicates that WHCA.AS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than R1GR.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


WHCA.ASR1GR.ASDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.00%

4.11%

+0.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.69%

11.20%

-1.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.92%

15.90%

-1.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.72%

19.57%

-4.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.72%

19.57%

-4.85%

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS have an expense ratio of 0.18%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

WHCA.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Dividend Comparison

Neither WHCA.AS nor R1GR.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.18% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS have the same expense ratio: 0.18% per year.

WHCA.AS is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while R1GR.AS is Large Cap Growth Equities. WHCA.AS tracks MSCI World Health Care Advanced Select 20 35 Capped, while R1GR.AS tracks Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for WHCA.AS and R1GR.AS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer