Screener
BPAY vs IHF
iShares FinTech Active ETF vs iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF
Key differences
- IHF costs 0.17% less per year.
- IHF is significantly larger than BPAY — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BPAY is classified as alternative, while IHF is equity — different risk/return profiles.
- BPAY covers global markets; IHF covers north america.
- BPAY follows a active selection strategy; IHF uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, BPAY has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IHF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BPAY | IHF | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.55% | 0.38% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $9M | $777M |
| Since | 2022 | 2006 |
| Dividend yield | 2.89% | 1.11% |
| Asset class | alternative | equity |
| Region | global | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | -5.8% | +7.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | +9.7% | +1.4% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | -0.0% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.36 | -0.01 |
| Volatility 1Y | 25.59% | 21.56% |
| Max drawdown | -33.62% | -35.23% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BPAY and IHF
Explore further