PlainIndex

ETF comparison

FHLC vs IHF

Both Healthcare.

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF · iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

0 positions appear in both funds. Buying equal dollars of FHLC and IHF would leave roughly 0.0% of each dollar exposed to the same underlying securities.

FHLC only 0.0% Shared 0.0% IHF only 0.0%
In FHLC only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In IHF only
0 positions

Holdings data for FHLC covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Holdings data for IHF covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Side by side

FHLC

Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF

Fidelity · Healthcare

84 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.084%
Net assets
$2.85B
TTM yield
1.44%
Top-10 conc.
—
IHF

iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF

iShares · Healthcare

64 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.38%
Net assets
$776.6M
TTM yield
1.11%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

92
Cost
62
80
Tax efficiency
81
76
Liquidity
52
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
FHLC sub-score IHF

Tracking-quality sub-score is not yet computed for any fund — see methodology for which inputs are live.

Cost difference

FHLC is 30 bps cheaper than IHF. On a $100,000 position that's about $296/yr more in fees for IHF.

Fee figure is the annual expense charged on $100,000. It compounds over time — we publish a fuller cost-projection calculator on the methodology page.

Top shared holdings

0 shared in total

No shared holdings between these funds.

Only in FHLC

0 total

Every FHLC position is also held by IHF.

Only in IHF

0 total

Every IHF position is also held by FHLC.

Holdings overlap is the sum of min(weight_a, weight_b) over positions matched on ISIN (CUSIP fallback). Methodology: see /methodology/.

Comparing two funds doesn't endorse swapping one for the other. Tax-lot history, account type, and personal goals matter — PlainIndex publishes data and methodology, not investment advice.