XHS vs. FHLC
XHS (SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - XHS tracks the S&P Health Care Services Select Industry Index while FHLC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XHS returned 8.61%/yr vs 10.02%/yr for FHLC. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XHS charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.
Performance
XHS vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XHS achieves a 15.40% return, which is significantly higher than FHLC's 0.11% return. Over the past 10 years, XHS has underperformed FHLC with an annualized return of 8.61%, while FHLC has yielded a comparatively higher 10.02% annualized return.
XHS
- 1D
- 0.88%
- 1M
- 8.42%
- YTD
- 15.40%
- 6M
- 14.24%
- 1Y
- 28.59%
- 3Y*
- 11.29%
- 5Y*
- 1.64%
- 10Y*
- 8.61%
FHLC
- 1D
- 1.34%
- 1M
- 2.70%
- YTD
- 0.11%
- 6M
- -0.37%
- 1Y
- 19.38%
- 3Y*
- 7.06%
- 5Y*
- 4.57%
- 10Y*
- 10.02%
XHS vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XHS SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF | 15.40% | 18.83% | 1.76% | 5.15% | -19.87% | 9.76% | 33.66% | 18.81% | 1.96% | 17.65% |
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF | 0.11% | 15.42% | 2.48% | 2.58% | -5.55% | 20.39% | 18.13% | 21.94% | 4.71% | 23.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between XHS and FHLC is 0.56, 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 | 0.56 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.72 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2013 | 0.73 |
The correlation between XHS and FHLC shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (1 year) to 0.73 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XHS vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XHS
FHLC
Healthcare
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
-
Healthcare
XHS
FHLC
Financial Services
XHS
FHLC
Basic Materials
XHS
-
FHLC
-
Communication Services
XHS
-
FHLC
-
Consumer Cyclical
XHS
-
FHLC
-
Consumer Defensive
XHS
-
FHLC
-
Energy
XHS
-
FHLC
-
Industrials
XHS
-
FHLC
Real Estate
XHS
-
FHLC
-
Technology
XHS
-
FHLC
Utilities
XHS
-
FHLC
-
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
XHS vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank
XHS
FHLC
XHS vs. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS) 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.
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.
| XHS | FHLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.28 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.23 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.39 | 1.88 | +0.52 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.63 | 4.64 | +1.99 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XHS vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XHS drawdown since its inception was -39.32%, which is greater than FHLC's maximum drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XHS and FHLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XHS | FHLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.32% | -28.76% | -10.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.99% | -10.38% | -1.61% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.81% | -16.87% | -0.94% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.62% | -17.73% | -14.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.32% | -28.76% | -10.56% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -3.08% | +3.08% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.16% | -5.19% | -4.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.32% | 4.19% | +0.13% |
Volatility
XHS vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS) is 4.47%, while Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) has a volatility of 5.04%. This indicates that XHS 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XHS | FHLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.47% | 5.04% | -0.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.25% | 10.54% | +1.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.92% | 14.73% | +3.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.13% | 15.03% | +6.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.40% | 16.82% | +5.58% |
XHS vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
XHS has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.
Dividends
XHS vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison
XHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than FHLC's 1.38% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF | 1.38% | 1.40% | 1.51% | 1.40% | 1.30% | 1.16% | 1.45% | 1.18% | 1.38% | 1.38% | 1.40% | 2.07% |
XHS SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF | 0.22% | 0.27% | 0.38% | 0.23% | 0.19% | 0.20% | 0.23% | 2.37% | 0.34% | 0.22% | 0.28% | 0.93% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XHS and FHLC have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FHLC has higher volatility (5.04%) compared to XHS (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XHS dropped -39.32% vs FHLC's -28.76%.
On 10-year performance, FHLC leads with 10.02% vs 8.61% for XHS. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, XHS has been the lower-risk option at 4.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, FHLC has performed better with a 10.02% return vs 8.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for XHS.
FHLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 0.22% for XHS.
XHS tracks S&P Health Care Services Select Industry Index, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for XHS and 0.08% for FHLC.
XHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.32), 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.
Find the right allocation for XHS and FHLC
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