ARKG vs FHLC: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of ARK Genomic Revolution ETF (ARKG) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) — both Healthcare funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of October 23, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
ARKG and FHLC compete directly — both are Healthcare funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FHLC scores higher: 74.3 (Grade B) versus 63.0 for ARKG. That doesn't make ARKG a bad fund; it means FHLC currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| ARKG | FHLC | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Healthcare | Healthcare |
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.08% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $2.2B | $3.5B |
| Dividend yield | n/a | 1.18% |
| 1-year return | +57.54% | +24.43% |
| 3-year return | +114.71% | +55.23% |
| Volatility | 44.66% | 15.78% |
| Max drawdown | -46.45% | -16.87% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 1.23 |
| ETFValuer score | 63.0 | 74.3 |
| Grade | C | B |
| Overall rank | #209 | #64 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
FHLC is the cheaper fund, charging 0.08% a year versus 0.75% for ARKG — a gap of 0.67 percentage points (about $66.60/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What ARKG's Fees Cost You
ARKG charges an expense ratio of 0.75% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, ARKG returned +114.71% versus +55.23% for FHLC — a gap of about 59.5 percentage points. On risk, FHLC has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-16.87% vs. -46.45%). FHLC currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.23 vs. 1.18), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (754 shared trading days), ARKG and FHLC show a moderate correlation of 0.543 — related but meaningfully different. That's loose enough that the two funds do behave differently in a meaningful share of market conditions — holding both is defensible if you want exposure to each mandate.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.543 | Moderate — related but meaningfully different |
| R-squared | 29.5% | 29.5% of ARKG's daily moves are explained by FHLC's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 38.75% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | ARKG +26.64% · FHLC +14.50% | ARKG ahead by 12.14 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, ARKG finished as much as +74.8 points ahead of FHLC at the best extreme and -33.1 points at the worst — a 107.9-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
ARKG and FHLC hold 1 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 4.7% of ARKG and 13.3% of FHLC. That's modest duplication — the funds are mostly distinct at the top, so holding both can still add diversification.
| Shared Holding | ARKG Weight | FHLC Weight |
|---|---|---|
| ELI LILLY & COMPANY | 4.68% | 13.35% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean ARKG if…
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 114.7% over 3 years against 55.2%
Lean FHLC if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.08% vs 0.75%, about $67 a year less on a $10,000 position
- It has been the calmer ride (15.8% volatility vs 44.7%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-16.9% vs -46.5%)
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ARKG or FHLC better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FHLC scores higher: 74.3 (Grade B) versus 63.0 for ARKG. That doesn't make ARKG a bad fund; it means FHLC currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, ARKG or FHLC?
FHLC currently has the lower expense ratio (0.08% vs. 0.75%).
Can I hold both ARKG and FHLC?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. ARKG and FHLC correlate at only 0.54 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.