PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XHC.TO vs. MOAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XHC.TO vs. MOAT

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

XHC.TO (iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and MOAT (VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XHC.TO is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while MOAT is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XHC.TO returned 7.31%/yr vs 14.70%/yr for MOAT. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XHC.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for MOAT.

Performance

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.TO) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XHC.TO is traded in CAD, while MOAT is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the MOAT values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XHC.TO achieves a 1.77% return, which is significantly lower than MOAT's 4.16% return. Over the past 10 years, XHC.TO has underperformed MOAT with an annualized return of 7.31%, while MOAT has yielded a comparatively higher 14.70% annualized return.

XHC.TO

1D
-1.06%
1M
5.81%
YTD
1.77%
6M
1.52%
1Y
15.74%
3Y*
5.07%
5Y*
3.60%
10Y*
7.31%

MOAT

1D
0.38%
1M
3.33%
YTD
4.16%
6M
3.46%
1Y
16.68%
3Y*
13.13%
5Y*
11.17%
10Y*
14.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XHC.TO
iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.77%10.91%1.22%2.14%-3.57%17.32%8.71%22.47%2.20%16.83%
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF		4.16%8.03%20.11%28.75%-8.19%24.06%12.11%29.24%7.02%14.84%

Correlation

The correlation between XHC.TO and MOAT is 0.50, 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

0.50

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.51

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 25, 2012

0.58

The correlation between XHC.TO and MOAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XHC.TO
MOAT

Healthcare

100.0%
15.9%

Consumer Defensive

0.5%
17.0%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.3%

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

9.0%

Industrials

-

13.8%

Real Estate

-

0.8%

Technology

-

33.8%

Utilities

-

-

Healthcare

XHC.TO
100.0%
MOAT
15.9%

Consumer Defensive

XHC.TO
0.5%
MOAT
17.0%

Basic Materials

XHC.TO

-

MOAT

-

Communication Services

XHC.TO

-

MOAT
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XHC.TO

-

MOAT
7.3%

Energy

XHC.TO

-

MOAT

-

Financial Services

XHC.TO

-

MOAT
9.0%

Industrials

XHC.TO

-

MOAT
13.8%

Real Estate

XHC.TO

-

MOAT
0.8%

Technology

XHC.TO

-

MOAT
33.8%

Utilities

XHC.TO

-

MOAT

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF

Often compared with XHC.TO:
XHC.TO vs. XLVXHC.TO vs. VHTXHC.TO vs. TDOCXHC.TO vs. LIFE.TOXHC.TO vs. XST.TOXHC.TO vs. ZUH.TOXHC.TO vs. IHI
Often compared with MOAT:
MOAT vs. SPYMOAT vs. VOOMOAT vs. BRK-AMOAT vs. SCHDMOAT vs. IVVMOAT vs. VTIMOAT vs. IOO

Return for Risk

XHC.TO vs. MOAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XHC.TO
XHC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
XHC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
MOAT
MOAT Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
MOAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MOAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
MOAT Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
MOAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
MOAT Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
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.

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.TO) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). 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.

XHC.TOMOATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.06
1.15

-0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.68
1.74

-0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.20

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.46

1.33

+0.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.49

3.61

-0.13

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XHC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is comparable to the MOAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XHC.TO and MOAT, 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...

Drawdowns

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XHC.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.28%, roughly equal to the maximum MOAT drawdown of -27.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XHC.TO and MOAT.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XHC.TOMOATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.28%

-27.44%

+0.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.79%

-12.63%

+1.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.81%

-21.70%

+2.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.81%

-21.70%

+2.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.28%

-27.44%

+0.16%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.66%

-1.19%

-1.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.17%

-3.24%

-1.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.53%

4.63%

-0.10%

Volatility

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.17% compared to VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) at 4.77%. This indicates that XHC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MOAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XHC.TOMOATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.17%

4.77%

+0.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.08%

10.95%

+0.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.93%

14.55%

+0.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.09%

19.14%

-5.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.79%

19.56%

-3.77%

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

XHC.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than MOAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

XHC.TO vs. MOAT - Dividend Comparison

XHC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.90%, more than MOAT's 1.35% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF		1.35%1.36%1.37%0.86%1.25%1.08%1.46%1.31%1.79%1.07%1.17%2.13%
XHC.TO
iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.90%1.87%4.42%2.38%0.84%0.80%0.97%1.07%1.68%1.14%1.63%2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

XHC.TO and MOAT have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MOAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MOAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for XHC.TO.

XHC.TO is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while MOAT is Large Cap Blend Equities. XHC.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while MOAT tracks Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for XHC.TO and 0.47% for MOAT.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XHC.TO and MOAT

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