FHLC vs IYH: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) and iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF (IYH) — both Healthcare funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
FHLC and IYH are close to the same fund wearing different labels. Both sit in the Healthcare category and their daily returns move almost identically, so this is not really a question of which fund is better — it is a question of which one is cheaper to own and easier to trade in your account. Everything below is about finding the small, structural edges, because the investment exposure is a wash.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FHLC scores higher: 70.1 (Grade B) versus 62.9 for IYH. That doesn't make IYH 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
| FHLC | IYH | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Healthcare | Healthcare |
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.38% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $3.2B | $3.2B |
| Dividend yield | 1.32% | 4.28% |
| 1-year return | +23.55% | +21.01% |
| 3-year return | +29.16% | +25.82% |
| Volatility | 15.17% | 15.65% |
| Max drawdown | -16.87% | -17.91% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 1.02 |
| ETFValuer score | 70.1 | 62.9 |
| Grade | B | C |
| Overall rank | #110 | #198 |
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 0.38% for IYH — a gap of 0.30 percentage points (about $29.60/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. Since these two deliver almost the same exposure, that fee gap is close to the entire difference between them — it comes straight out of your return with nothing offered in exchange. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What IYH's Fees Cost You
IYH charges an expense ratio of 0.38% 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, FHLC returned +29.16% versus +25.82% for IYH — a gap of about 3.3 percentage points. On risk, FHLC has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-16.87% vs. -17.91%). FHLC currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.22 vs. 1.02), 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 (752 shared trading days), FHLC and IYH show a near-perfect correlation of 0.992 — functionally interchangeable. At this level the two funds are, for practical purposes, the same investment. Owning both adds no diversification whatsoever — the decision should come down entirely to cost, spread and which one your broker handles better.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.992 | Near-perfect — functionally interchangeable |
| R-squared | 98.5% | 98.5% of FHLC's daily moves are explained by IYH's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 1.78% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | FHLC +8.61% · IYH +7.57% | FHLC ahead by 1.04 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, FHLC finished as much as +3.1 points ahead of IYH at the best extreme and -0.7 points at the worst — a 3.7-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
FHLC and IYH hold 9 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 38.5% of FHLC and 43.7% of IYH. That's heavy duplication — owning both largely doubles down on the same companies rather than spreading risk. Most investors should pick one.
| Shared Holding | FHLC Weight | IYH Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Johnson & Johnson | 8.94% | 10.14% |
| AbbVie Inc | 6.03% | 6.86% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 5.42% | 6.18% |
| Merck & Co Inc | 4.38% | 4.97% |
| Amgen Inc | 3.01% | 3.41% |
| Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 2.91% | 3.32% |
| Gilead Sciences Inc | 2.62% | 2.99% |
| Intuitive Surgical Inc | 2.62% | 2.96% |
| Abbott Laboratories | 2.55% | 2.88% |
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 FHLC if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.08% vs 0.38%, about $30 a year less on a $10,000 position
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.22 beats 1.02
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 29.2% over 3 years against 25.8%
Lean IYH if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 4.28% against 1.32%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is FHLC or IYH better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FHLC scores higher: 70.1 (Grade B) versus 62.9 for IYH. That doesn't make IYH 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, FHLC or IYH?
FHLC currently has the lower expense ratio (0.08% vs. 0.38%).
Can I hold both FHLC and IYH?
You can, but there's little point. FHLC and IYH have a daily return correlation of 0.99 over the past 3.0 years, meaning they move almost in lockstep. Holding both roughly doubles a single bet rather than spreading it — pick whichever wins on cost and liquidity and put the money in one place.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.