The case for longevity ETFs to buy has grown more concrete as the industry itself scales: the longevity sector is projected to nearly triple in size between 2025 and 2035, and exchange-traded funds now give investors a range of options from broad biotech exposure to a pure-play aging theme. Three tickers cover most of the spectrum: XBI, BMED, and AGNG.
| ETF | AUM | Expense Ratio | Holdings | YTD Return (2026) | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XBI (SPDR S&P Biotech) | $7.86B | 0.35% | ~155 | ~5.5% | 0.34% |
| BMED (iShares Health Innovation Active) | $10.24M | 0.55% | ~50 | Underperforming | N/A |
| AGNG (Global X Aging Population) | $81.49M | 0.50% | ~90 | Underperforming | 0.89% |
XBI: Scale, Liquidity, and a 20-Year Track Record
The SPDR S&P Biotech ETF launched January 31, 2006, making it the most seasoned name among longevity ETFs to buy on this list. It tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index using a sampling strategy, and currently holds 155 securities with an average market cap of roughly $16.49 billion and a price-to-book ratio of 4.45.
No single position exceeds about 1.8% of the portfolio. That equal-weight tilt spreads single-stock risk, but it also mutes the upside when one name runs hard. The trade-off is a fund that rarely blows up on a bad FDA readout, and rarely explodes on a good one.
Liquidity is not an issue. Average one-month trading volume runs near 8.5 million shares, and $7.86 billion in assets backs it up. The 0.35% expense ratio is the lowest of the three funds here, offset in small part by a 0.34% dividend yield. The 12-month return topping 50% through mid-2026 is the headline number; the 5.5% year-to-date figure is softer but follows a strong 2025.
XBI is not a longevity pure-play. But every company in the basket develops therapies and products for human disease. For investors who want broad healthcare innovation exposure without a concentrated bet on aging specifically, it is the most liquid, lowest-cost entry point.
BMED: Active Management, Narrow Portfolio, Former Identity
The iShares Health Innovation Active ETF trades under BMED but was formerly called the BlackRock Future Health ETF, a name change documented in SEC filings. The fund does not track an index. Managers build a roughly 50-stock portfolio from scratch, with the largest positions running above 5% each. Concentration is real here.
Per its SEC prospectus, BMED’s eligible universe spans common stocks, preferred stocks, convertible securities, warrants, and depositary receipts of health companies, giving managers wide latitude across security types and geographies. That flexibility comes at a price: a 0.55% expense ratio, the highest of the three funds.
Assets under management sit at just $10.24 million, which is thin. Bid-ask spreads can widen on light volume days, and position sizing matters more when the fund itself is small. Active management also means no quarterly rebalancing constraint; the team can adjust the portfolio at any time. So far in 2026, that flexibility has not translated into outperformance.
AGNG: The Most Direct Longevity ETFs to Buy for Theme Purity
For investors who want the tightest possible match to the aging theme, the Global X Aging Population ETF is the clearest choice among longevity ETFs to buy. Launched May 9, 2016, AGNG tracks the Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index, a market-cap-weighted benchmark targeting companies that enhance and extend senior citizens’ lives. The basket covers roughly 90 names across medical devices, life sciences, biotech, and pharmaceuticals, with a developed-market geographic tilt.
Theme purity comes with liquidity risk. $81.49 million in AUM is small, and trading volumes follow. The 0.50% expense ratio sits in the middle of the three funds. The 0.89% dividend yield is the highest of the group, though not high enough to position AGNG primarily as an income play.
Year-to-date performance in 2026 has lagged the broader market, similar to BMED. Both AGNG and BMED are arguably better evaluated over a multi-year horizon, since the thesis, demographic aging driving durable demand for longevity-related healthcare, plays out over years, not quarters.
How to Choose Between the Three
The decision comes down to two variables: how specific you want the longevity exposure, and how much liquidity and cost you are willing to give up to get it. XBI offers the broadest basket, the lowest fees, and by far the deepest liquidity. AGNG offers the tightest thematic fit but the smallest asset base. BMED sits between them on specificity while adding active management risk and the highest expense ratio.
A near-term catalyst for all three: any positive regulatory action on a major biotech or medical device name in the aging space would disproportionately lift AGNG given its concentration. For XBI, watch the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index rebalance dates. BMED’s next portfolio disclosure will show whether managers shifted positioning after a slow start to 2026.
