PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BIL vs. EMHC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BIL vs. EMHC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) and SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BIL achieves a 1.49% return, which is significantly lower than EMHC's 1.57% return.


BIL

1D
0.02%
1M
0.28%
YTD
1.49%
6M
1.77%
1Y
3.87%
3Y*
4.64%
5Y*
3.41%
10Y*
2.18%

EMHC

1D
-0.32%
1M
1.13%
YTD
1.57%
6M
1.74%
1Y
11.54%
3Y*
8.74%
5Y*
1.55%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BIL vs. EMHC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
BIL
SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF
1.49%4.15%5.19%4.94%1.40%-0.07%
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
1.57%14.07%3.52%10.06%-17.75%1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between BIL and EMHC is -0.18, 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

-0.18

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

-0.07

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

-0.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021

-0.00

The correlation between BIL and EMHC shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to -0.00 (5 years), 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

BIL vs. EMHC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BIL
BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100100
Overall Rank
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100100
Sortino Ratio Rank
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100100
Omega Ratio Rank
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100100
Calmar Ratio Rank
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100100
Martin Ratio Rank

EMHC
EMHC Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
EMHC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMHC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMHC Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
EMHC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMHC Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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.

BIL vs. EMHC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) and SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC). 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.


BILEMHCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+17.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+170.93

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

87.91

1.41

+86.50

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

355.35

2.65

+352.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2,817.77

11.09

+2,806.69

BIL vs. EMHC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BIL Sharpe Ratio is 19.71, which is higher than the EMHC Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BIL and EMHC, 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


BILEMHCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.71

2.14

+17.57

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

13.16

0.17

+12.99

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

8.52

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.78

0.22

+2.56

Drawdowns

BIL vs. EMHC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BIL drawdown since its inception was -0.78%, smaller than the maximum EMHC drawdown of -28.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIL and EMHC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BILEMHCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-0.78%

-28.03%

+27.25%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.01%

-4.37%

+4.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.01%

-7.67%

+7.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-0.10%

-28.03%

+27.93%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-0.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.32%

+0.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.26%

-9.91%

+9.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.00%

1.04%

-1.04%

Volatility

BIL vs. EMHC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) is 0.05%, while SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) has a volatility of 1.89%. This indicates that BIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMHC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BILEMHCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.05%

1.89%

-1.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

0.13%

4.16%

-4.03%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.20%

5.43%

-5.23%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

0.26%

9.06%

-8.80%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

0.26%

8.96%

-8.70%

BIL vs. EMHC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BIL has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than EMHC's 0.23% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

BIL vs. EMHC - Dividend Comparison

BIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.86%, less than EMHC's 6.11% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
BIL
SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF
3.86%4.13%5.03%4.92%1.35%0.00%0.30%2.05%1.66%0.68%0.07%
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
6.11%6.16%5.95%5.12%5.11%2.97%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


BIL and EMHC have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMHC has higher volatility (1.89%) compared to BIL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BIL dropped -0.78% vs EMHC's -28.03%.

On 5-year performance, BIL leads with 3.41% vs 1.55% for EMHC. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BIL has performed better with a 3.41% return vs 1.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for EMHC.

EMHC has the higher dividend yield at 6.11%, compared with 3.86% for BIL.

BIL is categorized as Government Bonds, while EMHC is Emerging Markets Bonds. BIL tracks Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index, while EMHC tracks Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for BIL and 0.23% for EMHC.

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.71 vs 2.14), 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 BIL and EMHC

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