Screener
IHF vs BMED
iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF vs iShares Health Innovation Active ETF
Key differences
- IHF costs 0.17% less per year.
- IHF is significantly larger than BMED — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IHF follows a index tracking strategy; BMED uses active selection.
- Over the last 3 years, BMED has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IHF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| IHF | BMED | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.38% | 0.55% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $777M | $10M |
| Since | 2006 | 2020 |
| Dividend yield | 1.11% | 0.00% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +7.9% | +18.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | +1.4% | +4.9% |
| CAGR 5Y | -0.0% | +0.1% |
| Sharpe 3Y | -0.01 | 0.16 |
| Volatility 1Y | 21.56% | 14.94% |
| Max drawdown | -35.23% | -36.44% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IHF and BMED
Explore further