PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XHC.TO (iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - XHC.TO is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XHC.TO returned 6.87%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for XQQ.TO. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XHC.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - 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 iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XHC.TO achieves a -5.65% return, which is significantly lower than XQQ.TO's 19.81% return. Over the past 10 years, XHC.TO has underperformed XQQ.TO with an annualized return of 6.87%, while XQQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.70% annualized return.

XHC.TO

1D
0.59%
1M
0.77%
YTD
-5.65%
6M
-5.54%
1Y
7.72%
3Y*
2.70%
5Y*
3.54%
10Y*
6.87%

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XHC.TO
iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		-5.65%10.91%1.22%2.14%-3.56%21.32%8.71%22.47%2.20%16.84%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%45.23%37.48%-2.33%31.83%

Correlation

The correlation between XHC.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.25

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

0.32

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

0.45

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

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2011

0.56

Over the past year, the correlation between XHC.TO and XQQ.TO has dropped to 0.25 - well below their long-term average of 0.56, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XHC.TO
XQQ.TO

Healthcare

97.4%
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

0.5%
7.7%

Basic Materials

-

1.1%

Communication Services

-

15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

-

12.2%

Energy

-

0.6%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Industrials

-

3.1%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

53.7%

Utilities

-

1.4%

Healthcare

XHC.TO
97.4%
XQQ.TO
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

XHC.TO
0.5%
XQQ.TO
7.7%

Basic Materials

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
1.1%

Communication Services

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
12.2%

Energy

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.6%

Financial Services

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.2%

Industrials

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
3.1%

Real Estate

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.1%

Technology

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
53.7%

Utilities

XHC.TO

-

XQQ.TO
1.4%

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)

iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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. IHIXHC.TO vs. ZUH.TO
Often compared with XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO — 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: 1717
Overall Rank
XHC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1616
Omega Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
XHC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.

XHC.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.54
2.45

-1.91

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.91
3.20

-2.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.10

1.42

-0.32

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.72

3.03

-2.31

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.76

11.31

-9.55

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XHC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.54, which is lower than the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XHC.TO and XQQ.TO, 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

XHC.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.54

2.45

-1.91

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.26

0.68

-0.43

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.44

0.89

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

0.86

-0.19

Drawdowns

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XHC.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.28%, smaller than the maximum XQQ.TO drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XHC.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XHC.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.28%

-38.55%

+11.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.79%

-12.76%

+1.97%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.81%

-22.72%

+3.91%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.81%

-38.55%

+19.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.28%

-38.55%

+11.27%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.76%

-0.27%

-9.49%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.85%

-5.92%

+1.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.39%

3.41%

+0.98%

Volatility

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.76% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) at 4.48%. This indicates that XHC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XHC.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.76%

4.48%

+0.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.21%

12.00%

-1.79%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.34%

15.82%

-1.48%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.87%

22.52%

-8.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.75%

22.34%

-6.59%

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XHC.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

XHC.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

XHC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, more than XQQ.TO's 0.21% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XHC.TO
iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.98%1.87%4.42%2.38%0.84%0.79%0.96%1.07%1.68%1.14%1.63%2.15%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

XHC.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for XHC.TO.

XHC.TO is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. XHC.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for XHC.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XHC.TO and XQQ.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