XHS vs. IHF
XHS (SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF) and IHF (iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - XHS tracks the S&P Health Care Services Select Industry Index while IHF tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Health Care Providers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XHS returned 8.61%/yr vs 8.88%/yr for IHF. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XHS charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for IHF.
Performance
XHS vs. IHF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XHS achieves a 15.40% return, which is significantly higher than IHF's 11.55% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XHS having a 8.61% annualized return and IHF not far ahead at 8.88%.
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%
IHF
- 1D
- 0.74%
- 1M
- 5.23%
- YTD
- 11.55%
- 6M
- 12.02%
- 1Y
- 14.30%
- 3Y*
- 2.85%
- 5Y*
- 0.85%
- 10Y*
- 8.88%
XHS vs. IHF - 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% |
IHF iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF | 11.55% | 0.92% | -7.90% | -1.11% | -7.11% | 24.46% | 17.67% | 22.34% | 9.56% | 25.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between XHS and IHF is 0.79, 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 | 0.79 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2011 | 0.83 |
The correlation between XHS and IHF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.
XHS vs. IHF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XHS
IHF
Healthcare
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
-
Healthcare
XHS
IHF
Financial Services
XHS
IHF
Basic Materials
XHS
-
IHF
-
Communication Services
XHS
-
IHF
-
Consumer Cyclical
XHS
-
IHF
-
Consumer Defensive
XHS
-
IHF
-
Energy
XHS
-
IHF
-
Industrials
XHS
-
IHF
-
Real Estate
XHS
-
IHF
-
Technology
XHS
-
IHF
Utilities
XHS
-
IHF
-
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. IHF — Risk / Return Rank
XHS
IHF
XHS vs. IHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS) and iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF). 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 | IHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.95 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.14 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.39 | 0.73 | +1.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.63 | 1.68 | +4.95 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XHS vs. IHF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XHS drawdown since its inception was -39.32%, smaller than the maximum IHF drawdown of -58.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XHS and IHF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XHS | IHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.32% | -58.42% | +19.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.99% | -19.72% | +7.73% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.81% | -29.85% | +12.04% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.62% | -29.85% | -2.77% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.32% | -35.23% | -4.09% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -7.44% | +7.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.16% | -10.64% | +0.48% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.32% | 8.51% | -4.19% |
Volatility
XHS vs. IHF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF (XHS) is 4.47%, while iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF (IHF) has a volatility of 5.27%. This indicates that XHS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XHS | IHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.47% | 5.27% | -0.80% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.25% | 16.10% | -3.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.92% | 21.90% | -3.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.13% | 19.17% | +1.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.40% | 21.02% | +1.38% |
XHS vs. IHF - Expense Ratio Comparison
XHS has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IHF's 0.43% expense ratio.
Dividends
XHS vs. IHF - Dividend Comparison
XHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than IHF's 0.98% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IHF iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF | 0.98% | 1.05% | 0.86% | 0.79% | 0.74% | 0.56% | 0.53% | 0.58% | 4.01% | 0.19% | 0.25% | 0.20% |
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 IHF have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IHF has higher volatility (5.27%) compared to XHS (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XHS dropped -39.32% vs IHF's -58.42%.
On 10-year performance, IHF leads with 8.88% vs 8.61% for XHS. On fees, XHS is cheaper at 0.35% 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, IHF has performed better with a 8.88% return vs 8.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XHS is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for IHF.
IHF has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.22% for XHS.
XHS tracks S&P Health Care Services Select Industry Index, while IHF tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Health Care Providers Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for XHS and 0.43% for IHF.
XHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 0.66), 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 IHF
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