PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BEMB vs. EMB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BEMB vs. EMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BEMB achieves a 1.27% return, which is significantly lower than EMB's 1.80% return.


BEMB

1D
-0.34%
1M
0.94%
YTD
1.27%
6M
1.64%
1Y
9.77%
3Y*
8.80%
5Y*
10Y*

EMB

1D
-0.37%
1M
1.29%
YTD
1.80%
6M
1.93%
1Y
11.56%
3Y*
9.74%
5Y*
1.86%
10Y*
3.29%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BEMB vs. EMB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
BEMB
Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
1.27%12.27%5.51%8.88%
EMB
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
1.80%13.85%5.54%9.47%

Correlation

The correlation between BEMB and EMB is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

0.96

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

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2023

0.97

The correlation between BEMB and EMB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

BEMB vs. EMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

BEMB
BEMB Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
BEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
BEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
BEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
BEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank

EMB
EMB Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
EMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMB Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
EMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
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.

BEMB vs. EMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB). 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.


BEMBEMBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.45

1.41

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.68

2.58

+0.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.53

11.01

+0.52

BEMB vs. EMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BEMB Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is comparable to the EMB Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BEMB and EMB, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


BEMBEMBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.30

2.09

+0.21

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.19

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.45

0.44

+1.02

Drawdowns

BEMB vs. EMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BEMB drawdown since its inception was -6.17%, smaller than the maximum EMB drawdown of -34.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BEMB and EMB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BEMBEMBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-6.17%

-34.70%

+28.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.67%

-4.51%

+0.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.17%

-7.95%

+1.78%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.34%

-0.37%

+0.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.94%

-5.06%

+4.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.85%

1.05%

-0.20%

Volatility

BEMB vs. EMB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB) is 1.49%, while iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB) has a volatility of 1.85%. This indicates that BEMB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BEMBEMBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.49%

1.85%

-0.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.46%

4.52%

-1.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.26%

5.56%

-1.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.88%

9.75%

-3.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.88%

9.96%

-4.08%

BEMB vs. EMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BEMB has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than EMB's 0.39% expense ratio.


Dividends

BEMB vs. EMB - Dividend Comparison

BEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.88%, more than EMB's 5.06% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BEMB
Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
6.88%6.88%6.31%5.46%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
EMB
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
5.06%4.98%5.46%4.74%5.04%3.89%3.88%4.51%5.64%4.54%4.83%4.84%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.96, BEMB and EMB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

EMB has higher volatility (1.85%) compared to BEMB (1.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BEMB dropped -6.17% vs EMB's -34.70%.

On 3-year performance, EMB leads with 9.74% vs 8.80% for BEMB. On fees, BEMB is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BEMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, EMB has performed better with a 9.74% return vs 8.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BEMB is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for EMB.

BEMB has the higher dividend yield at 6.88%, compared with 5.06% for EMB.

Their fees differ too: 0.18% for BEMB and 0.39% for EMB.

BEMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 2.09), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BEMB and EMB

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