Market news

FHLC delivered 24% returns over one year with a 0.08% expense ratio, while IXJ offers global diversification but trails on performance and costs more to own.

One fund offers broad sector exposure at 0.08% cost; the other concentrates on 30 biotech stocks with higher volatility but stronger recent returns.

FHLC captures the whole healthcare opportunity at rock-bottom cost. XPH narrows the bet to pharmaceuticals and charges significantly more for it.

Invesco's biotech fund surged 56.4% in one year, while Fidelity's broader healthcare portfolio offers lower costs and steadier returns.

VanEck's concentrated 26-stock portfolio has outpaced Fidelity's broader 334-holding fund over five years, but at a steeper cost and higher volatility.

Fidelity's lower 0.08% fee and broader 338-stock portfolio contrast sharply with iShares' concentrated pharma play, which delivered 60% returns in one year.

Fidelity's broad, low-cost index approach goes head-to-head with an actively managed, mission-driven healthcare fund.

FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio and market-cap approach delivered stronger returns, while RSPH's equal-weight strategy offers lower volatility and broader diversification across 60 holdings.

State Street's concentrated 60-stock approach outpaced Fidelity's broader 365-holding fund over five years, though both charge identical 0.08% fees.

One basis point separates these two healthcare funds. Here is why the bigger decision is whether to own healthcare at all.

One offers broad stability with lower costs and higher income, while the other chases biotech growth and has steeper volatility.

One offers broad stability with lower costs and higher income, while the other chases biotech growth with 89.3% annual returns but steeper volatility.