BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Treasury Bond 0-1 yr UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (BBLL.L) and iShares $ Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF USD Acc (CBU7.L).

BBLL.L and CBU7.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BBLL.L is a passively managed fund by JPMorgan that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg US Government TR USD. It was launched on Jul 9, 2019. CBU7.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the ICE U.S. Treasury 3-7 Year Bond Index. It was launched on Jun 3, 2009. Both BBLL.L and CBU7.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Treasury Bond 0-1 yr UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (BBLL.L) and iShares $ Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF USD Acc (CBU7.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BBLL.L JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Treasury Bond 0-1 yr UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	1.87%	2.34%
CBU7.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF USD Acc	1.37%	3.36%

Different Trading Currencies

BBLL.L is traded in GBP, while CBU7.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CBU7.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BBLL.L achieves a 1.87% return, which is significantly higher than CBU7.L's 1.37% return.

BBLL.L

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 0.67%
• YTD: 1.87%
• 6M: 3.02%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CBU7.L

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 1.37%
• 6M: 2.69%
• 1Y: 1.40%
• 3Y*: 1.17%
• 5Y*: 1.46%
• 10Y*: 2.16%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BBLL.L and CBU7.L have an expense ratio of 0.07%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

BBLL.L

JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Treasury Bond 0-1 yr UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

CBU7.L

iShares $ Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF USD Acc

Return for Risk

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CBU7.L

CBU7.L Risk / Return Rank: 61
CBU7.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
CBU7.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
CBU7.L Omega Ratio Rank: 56
CBU7.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
CBU7.L Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Treasury Bond 0-1 yr UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (BBLL.L) and iShares $ Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF USD Acc (CBU7.L). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BBLL.L	CBU7.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	0.19	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.17	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.72	0.40	+0.33

Correlation

The correlation between BBLL.L and CBU7.L is 0.70, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BBLL.L nor CBU7.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

BBLL.L vs. CBU7.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBLL.L drawdown since its inception was -4.55%, smaller than the maximum CBU7.L drawdown of -19.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBLL.L and CBU7.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBLL.L	CBU7.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.55%	-14.18%	+9.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-2.23%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.55%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.89%	-1.36%	+0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.56%	-3.36%	+1.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.68%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BBLL.L	CBU7.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.76%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.00%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.30%	7.32%	-1.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.30%	8.41%	-2.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.30%	9.84%	-3.54%