MHIP vs XHS

MHIPCMilliman Healthcare Inflation Plus ETF

XHSAState Street SPDR S&P Health Care Services ETF

In short

MHIP Most health-care ETFs track the sector's stocks. MHIP aims at its bills: a multi-asset, US-focused portfolio whose stated goal is returns above U.S. healthcare cost inflation. Different yardstick, different fund.

XHS Most health care ETFs are pharma funds in disguise. XHS buys the delivery system instead: insurers, hospitals, distributors and clinics, roughly equal weighted so one giant insurer does not run the show.

Stated mandate

MHIP The Fund seeks to generate returns before fees and expenses that, over time, exceed U.S. healthcare cost inflation.

XHS The fund seeks to track the total return of the S&P Health Care Services Select Industry Index before fees and expenses, providing targeted exposure to health care services companies.

Why people hold it

• MHIP The benchmark is a cost, not a stock index. The prospectus goal is returns, before fees, above U.S. healthcare cost inflation, a yardstick the sector's big index trackers don't use.
• Multi-asset by design. The mandate isn't limited to healthcare equities and runs an advertised factor approach rather than a market-cap ladder, with a US focus.
• The paperwork is specific: sector, geography and objective are all pinned down in SEC filings, and the portfolio has matched the mission it advertises.

• XHS No drugmakers, no device makers. The index tracks four slices of care delivery: distributors, facilities, health care services and managed care.ssga.com
• Modified equal weighting spreads about 60 names across large, mid and small caps, so the portfolio is not a bet on two or three mega caps.ssga.com
• 0.35% a year sits below the 0.50% median for broad health care ETFs, on a fund that has been running since 2011.
• Ranks in the top quartile of the broad health care ETFs we grade.

Worth knowing

• MHIP Costs 0.55% a year, above the typical health-care sector fund and several times what plain index trackers such as VHT, XLV and FHLC charge.
• Launched in 2026, still small and thinly traded, so spreads and fill quality matter more here than with the sector's household-name funds.
• Short history. There's no full-cycle record yet showing how the strategy behaves when markets and healthcare costs move in opposite directions.

• XHS Cheap against the median, not against the giants: XLV, VHT and FHLC charge under a tenth of a percent for cap weighted whole sector exposure.
• Thinly traded next to the big sector funds, so spreads and limit orders matter more here.
• Leaving out pharma and biotech means it moves differently from a whole sector fund, and insurers and hospitals sit close to reimbursement policy.ssga.com

Full MHIP profile⁠

Full XHS profile⁠