FHLC vs. BBH: Which Healthcare ETF Is the Better Buy?
Key Points
Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) provides broad sector exposure with significantly lower fees than VanEck Biotech ETF (BBH).
BBH focuses on just 25 holdings in the biotech space while FHLC holds more than 300 positions across the entire healthcare industry.
Over the last five years, FHLC had a higher return and a significantly smaller maximum drawdown than BBH.
- 10 stocks we like better than Fidelity Covington Trust - Fidelity Msci Health Care Index ETF ›
Choosing between a broad healthcare fund and a focused biotech fund comes down to how much risk -- and potential reward -- an investor is willing to take on. The Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (NYSEMKT:FHLC) and the VanEck Biotech ETF (NASDAQ:BBH) both offer exposure to the healthcare sector, but they go about it in very different ways.
FHLC tracks a broad index of pharmaceutical, medical device, and healthcare service companies, whereas BBH focuses specifically on the 25 largest US-listed biotechnology firms.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | BBH | FHLC |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | VanEck | Fidelity |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.08% |
| 1-year return (as of July 3, 2026) | 34.68% | 25.65% |
| Dividend yield | 0.51% | 1.40% |
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.62 |
| AUM | $366.9 million | $3.0 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-year return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
FHLC is the far cheaper option for long-term investors, charging an expense ratio of just 0.08% compared to BBH's 0.35%. FHLC also pays a higher trailing dividend yield of 1.40%, nearly 0.9 percentage points more than BBH's 0.51%. Over time, that combination of lower fees and a higher yield can add up meaningfully for buy-and-hold investors.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | BBH | FHLC |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 yr) | (39.86%) | (17.73%) |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return) | $1,066 | $1,322 |
What's inside
Launched in 2013, FHLC tracks a broad basket of 338 holdings across the entire healthcare landscape, including pharmaceutical, device, and service firms. Its largest positions include Eli Lilly & Co (NYSE:LLY) at 14.0%, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) at 8.6%, and AbbVie (NYSE:ABBV) at 6.1%.
BBH is a much narrower strategy, holding just 25 stocks involved in biotechnology, genetic research, and diagnostics. Top holdings include Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ:GILD) at 14.1%, Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN) at 13.9%, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:VRTX) at 8.1%. The fund was launched in 2011.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
The choice here really comes down to risk tolerance and what you’re seeking from a healthcare ETF. FHLC is built for investors who want steady, diversified exposure to the healthcare industry without betting heavily on any one subsector -- and its low 0.08% expense ratio and 338-stock portfolio make it a reasonable "set it and forget it" option for a core healthcare holding.
BBH, on the other hand, is much more targeted. Biotech stocks tend to be more volatile than the broader healthcare sector because their fortunes often hinge on binary events -- drug trial results, FDA approvals, or patent cliffs -- rather than steady, predictable revenue streams.
FHLC's diversification has translated into a smoother ride for investors -- the fund has a notably smaller maximum drawdown over the past five years than BBH. That's not surprising given the difference in strategy: spreading assets across hundreds of companies in different subsectors tends to cushion the blow when any single stock or theme stumbles, while a 25-stock biotech-only portfolio can swing harder in both directions.
Neither of these funds is objectively better than the other -- it just depends on the role you want a healthcare ETF to play. Someone looking for lower-cost, lower-volatility healthcare exposure as part of a diversified portfolio will likely find FHLC to be the more comfortable holding. Someone with a higher risk tolerance who wants concentrated upside if a biotech breakthrough or M&A wave hits the sector may find BBH's narrower focus more appealing, as long as you accept that the trade-off is a bumpier ride along the way.
Should you buy stock in Fidelity Covington Trust - Fidelity Msci Health Care Index ETF right now?
Before you buy stock in Fidelity Covington Trust - Fidelity Msci Health Care Index ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Fidelity Covington Trust - Fidelity Msci Health Care Index ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $418,761!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,195,804!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 918% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 208% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of July 4, 2026.
Andy Gould has positions in AbbVie and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool recommends Johnson & Johnson. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Recommended Articles
