36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE
36B1.DE (iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF) and ICGB.DE (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds from iShares - 36B1.DE tracks the JP Morgan ESG EMBI Global Diversified while ICGB.DE tracks the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, 36B1.DE returned 1.88%/yr vs 3.70%/yr for ICGB.DE. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. 36B1.DE charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ICGB.DE.
Performance
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, 36B1.DE achieves a 4.50% return, which is significantly lower than ICGB.DE's 8.29% return.
36B1.DE
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- 0.79%
- 6M
- 3.14%
- YTD
- 4.50%
- 1Y
- 10.75%
- 3Y*
- 7.32%
- 5Y*
- 1.88%
- 10Y*
- —
ICGB.DE
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 1.24%
- 6M
- 6.21%
- YTD
- 8.29%
- 1Y
- 8.81%
- 3Y*
- 5.26%
- 5Y*
- 3.70%
- 10Y*
- —
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
36B1.DE iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF | 4.50% | 0.52% | 11.39% | 6.09% | -13.65% | 5.10% | -3.83% | 3.01% |
ICGB.DE iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 8.29% | -7.16% | 11.36% | -2.27% | 1.10% | 17.31% | 0.08% | -10.15% |
Correlation
The correlation between 36B1.DE and ICGB.DE is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2019 | 0.43 |
The correlation between 36B1.DE and ICGB.DE shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (all time) to 0.55 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE — Risk / Return Rank
36B1.DE
ICGB.DE
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (36B1.DE) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (ICGB.DE). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| 36B1.DE | ICGB.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.31 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.73 | 3.17 | +0.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.56 | 8.39 | +2.16 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum 36B1.DE drawdown since its inception was -22.35%, which is greater than ICGB.DE's maximum drawdown of -13.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 36B1.DE and ICGB.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| 36B1.DE | ICGB.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.35% | -13.36% | -8.99% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.87% | -2.77% | -0.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.32% | -11.17% | -1.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.23% | -13.36% | -2.87% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.28% | -1.42% | +0.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.65% | -6.39% | -2.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.02% | 1.04% | -0.02% |
Volatility
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Volatility Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (36B1.DE) has a higher volatility of 1.29% compared to iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (ICGB.DE) at 1.06%. This indicates that 36B1.DE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICGB.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| 36B1.DE | ICGB.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.29% | 1.06% | +0.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.07% | 3.58% | +0.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.02% | 5.32% | +0.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.51% | 6.63% | +1.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.17% | 7.89% | +2.28% |
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
36B1.DE has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than ICGB.DE's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
36B1.DE vs. ICGB.DE - Dividend Comparison
36B1.DE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.66%, more than ICGB.DE's 1.68% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
36B1.DE iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF | 5.66% | 5.96% | 5.31% | 5.52% | 5.19% | 3.36% | 3.81% | 2.35% |
ICGB.DE iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.68% | 1.92% | 2.22% | 2.58% | 2.80% | 2.71% | 2.63% | 0.95% |
Frequently Asked Questions
36B1.DE and ICGB.DE have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ICGB.DE is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ICGB.DE is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for 36B1.DE.
36B1.DE tracks JP Morgan ESG EMBI Global Diversified, while ICGB.DE tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for 36B1.DE and 0.35% for ICGB.DE.
Find the right allocation for 36B1.DE and ICGB.DE
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer