XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO
XHC.TO (iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XEC.TO (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XHC.TO is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XEC.TO is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XHC.TO returned 7.17%/yr vs 9.31%/yr for XEC.TO. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XHC.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for XEC.TO.
Performance
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XHC.TO achieves a 2.94% return, which is significantly lower than XEC.TO's 19.92% return. Over the past 10 years, XHC.TO has underperformed XEC.TO with an annualized return of 7.17%, while XEC.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 9.31% annualized return.
XHC.TO
- 1D
- 1.91%
- 1M
- 5.64%
- 6M
- 1.00%
- YTD
- 2.94%
- 1Y
- 17.24%
- 3Y*
- 6.27%
- 5Y*
- 3.56%
- 10Y*
- 7.17%
XEC.TO
- 1D
- -1.45%
- 1M
- -5.70%
- 6M
- 11.87%
- YTD
- 19.92%
- 1Y
- 35.05%
- 3Y*
- 20.80%
- 5Y*
- 8.59%
- 10Y*
- 9.31%
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XHC.TO iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.94% | 10.91% | 1.22% | 2.14% | -3.57% | 17.32% | 8.71% | 22.47% | 2.20% | 16.83% |
XEC.TO iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF | 19.92% | 25.78% | 16.14% | 7.92% | -14.76% | -1.75% | 15.08% | 11.54% | -8.26% | 27.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between XHC.TO and XEC.TO is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2013 | 0.42 |
Over the past year, the correlation between XHC.TO and XEC.TO has dropped to 0.17 - well below their long-term average of 0.42, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XHC.TO
XEC.TO
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Healthcare
XHC.TO
XEC.TO
Consumer Defensive
XHC.TO
XEC.TO
Basic Materials
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Communication Services
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Consumer Cyclical
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Energy
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Financial Services
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Industrials
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Real Estate
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Technology
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
Utilities
XHC.TO
-
XEC.TO
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
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XHC.TO
XEC.TO
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - 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 iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF (XEC.TO). 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.TO | XEC.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.31 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.60 | 3.13 | -1.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.81 | 9.39 | -5.59 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XHC.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.28%, smaller than the maximum XEC.TO drawdown of -32.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XHC.TO and XEC.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XHC.TO | XEC.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.28% | -32.54% | +5.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.79% | -11.25% | +0.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.81% | -15.07% | -3.74% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.81% | -28.30% | +9.49% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -27.28% | -32.54% | +5.26% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.60% | -9.95% | +7.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.16% | -9.53% | +4.37% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.54% | 3.74% | +0.80% |
Volatility
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.TO) is 6.11%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF (XEC.TO) has a volatility of 9.66%. This indicates that XHC.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XEC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XHC.TO | XEC.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.11% | 9.66% | -3.55% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.82% | 20.20% | -8.38% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.53% | 22.04% | -6.51% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.24% | 16.86% | -2.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.85% | 17.92% | -2.07% |
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XHC.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than XEC.TO's 0.28% expense ratio.
Dividends
XHC.TO vs. XEC.TO - Dividend Comparison
XHC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, more than XEC.TO's 1.64% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XEC.TO iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF | 1.64% | 1.92% | 2.03% | 2.15% | 2.19% | 2.78% | 1.64% | 2.87% | 2.66% | 2.13% | 1.80% | 2.19% |
XHC.TO iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.88% | 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 XEC.TO have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XEC.TO is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XEC.TO is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for XHC.TO.
XHC.TO is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while XEC.TO is Emerging Markets Equities. XHC.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XEC.TO tracks MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for XHC.TO and 0.28% for XEC.TO.
Find the right allocation for XHC.TO and XEC.TO
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