PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
AUCP.L vs. CEMB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

AUCP.L vs. CEMB

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

AUCP.L (L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AUCP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the STOXX Global Gold Miners, while CEMB is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AUCP.L returned 15.25%/yr vs 4.08%/yr for CEMB. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AUCP.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CEMB.

Performance

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

AUCP.L is traded in GBp, while CEMB is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CEMB values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUCP.L achieves a -7.67% return, which is significantly lower than CEMB's 2.06% return. Over the past 10 years, AUCP.L has outperformed CEMB with an annualized return of 15.25%, while CEMB has yielded a comparatively lower 4.08% annualized return.

AUCP.L

1D
5.97%
1M
-15.23%
YTD
-7.67%
6M
-6.42%
1Y
50.86%
3Y*
44.14%
5Y*
22.06%
10Y*
15.25%

CEMB

1D
0.13%
1M
0.28%
YTD
2.06%
6M
1.67%
1Y
8.29%
3Y*
4.99%
5Y*
2.98%
10Y*
4.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AUCP.L
L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF		-7.67%161.99%20.20%8.69%-4.04%-8.91%17.60%39.53%-5.63%0.57%
CEMB
iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF		2.06%1.11%7.66%2.96%-2.19%0.35%3.63%9.57%3.21%-2.15%

Correlation

The correlation between AUCP.L and CEMB is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.11

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.10

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.11

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.02

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 19, 2012

0.02

The correlation between AUCP.L and CEMB shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
AUCP.L
CEMB

Basic Materials

100.0%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

100.0%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

AUCP.L
100.0%
CEMB

-

Communication Services

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Consumer Cyclical

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Consumer Defensive

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Energy

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Financial Services

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Healthcare

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Industrials

AUCP.L

-

CEMB
100.0%

Real Estate

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Technology

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Utilities

AUCP.L

-

CEMB

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF

iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF

Often compared with AUCP.L:
AUCP.L vs. GDGB.LAUCP.L vs. GJGB.LAUCP.L vs. SPGP.LAUCP.L vs. SGLN.LAUCP.L vs. M9SD.DEAUCP.L vs. IAUAUCP.L vs. DFNS.L
Often compared with CEMB:
CEMB vs. EMBE.LCEMB vs. HYEMCEMB vs. IAGGCEMB vs. AGGG.LCEMB vs. ERNS.LCEMB vs. VEMT.LCEMB vs. VUCP.DE

Return for Risk

AUCP.L vs. CEMB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
AUCP.L
AUCP.L Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
CEMB
CEMB Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
CEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB). 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.

AUCP.LCEMBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.20
1.38

-0.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.69
2.07

-0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.26

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.52

1.78

-0.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.30

5.04

-0.74

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is comparable to the CEMB Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUCP.L and CEMB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUCP.L drawdown since its inception was -81.66%, which is greater than CEMB's maximum drawdown of -14.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUCP.L and CEMB.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

AUCP.LCEMBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-81.66%

-14.93%

-66.73%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.61%

-4.69%

-30.92%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.61%

-8.91%

-26.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.38%

-11.84%

-27.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.72%

-12.89%

-32.83%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-30.97%

-0.69%

-30.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-45.88%

-4.69%

-41.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

12.55%

1.65%

+10.90%

Volatility

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Volatility Comparison

L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) has a higher volatility of 14.66% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) at 1.56%. This indicates that AUCP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

AUCP.LCEMBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

14.66%

1.56%

+13.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.37%

4.51%

+30.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

45.10%

6.06%

+39.04%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

38.96%

8.06%

+30.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.19%

9.76%

+26.43%

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUCP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than CEMB's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

AUCP.L vs. CEMB - Dividend Comparison

AUCP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.13%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AUCP.L
L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CEMB
iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF		5.13%5.14%5.11%4.77%4.29%3.51%3.86%4.19%4.66%4.06%4.26%4.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

AUCP.L and CEMB have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CEMB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CEMB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AUCP.L.

AUCP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CEMB is Corporate Bonds. AUCP.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners, while CEMB tracks JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AUCP.L and 0.50% for CEMB.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AUCP.L and CEMB

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