FHLC vs IVV
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FHLC or IVV?
Each has led over a different period.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FHLC led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 51.5%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FHLC | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $3.3B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.23% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 341 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +9.35% | +12.24%Best |
| 1Y Return | +23.53%Best | +18.61% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.43% | +20.98%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.23% | +12.76%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.4%Best | 14.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -29.2%Best | -33.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,903 | $18,230Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 51.5% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 21, 2013 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 24, 2013 to Sep 9, 2026 (12.9 years).
FHLC vs IVV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 12.9 years both funds cover.
FHLC vs IVV Performance
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FHLC returned +23.53% while IVV returned +18.61%. Year to date, FHLC is up 9.35% versus a gain of 12.24% for IVV.
Over three years, FHLC compounded at +10.43% per year against +20.98% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +5.23% and +12.76% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.76% annualized vs +10.15%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.5% compared with 14.4% for FHLC. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -29.2% for FHLC and -33.9% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FHLC charges 0.08% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $3 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FHLC currently yields 1.23% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
84.7% of FHLC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 8.9% of IVV's money is in holdings FHLC also owns.
Most of FHLC is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
59 positions in common, counted across the 324 positions we hold weights for in FHLC and 505 in IVV, against full books of 341 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 438 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FHLC (90.4% of the fund), and 247 for FHLC that do not appear in IVV (13.9%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FHLC | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 12.76% | 1.39% | 11.37% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 8.82% | 0.93% | 7.89% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 6.24% | 0.65% | 5.59% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 5.03% | 0.48% | 4.55% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 4.87% | 0.56% | 4.31% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 3.20% | 0.33% | 2.87% |
| TMOThermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 3.16% | 0.32% | 2.84% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 2.65% | 0.28% | 2.37% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.50% | 0.25% | 2.25% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 2.23% | 0.22% | 2.01% |
84.7% of FHLC is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FHLC or IVV?
FHLC has an expense ratio of 0.08% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FHLC or IVV?
Over the past year FHLC returned +23.53% vs +18.61% for IVV, so FHLC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FHLC annualized +10.15% vs +12.76% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FHLC or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 14.5% annualized versus 14.4% for FHLC. Worst drawdown: FHLC -29.2% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both FHLC and IVV?
FHLC and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FHLC and IVV?
84.7% of FHLC's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 8.9% of IVV's is in holdings FHLC also owns. They hold 59 positions in common, counted across the 324 positions we hold weights for in FHLC and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FHLC or IVV?
FHLC yields 1.23% while IVV yields 1.06%, so FHLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FHLC?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FHLC led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 51.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.