PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BNDW vs. VEMT.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) and Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing (VEMT.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BNDW achieves a 0.15% return, which is significantly lower than VEMT.L's 0.61% return.


BNDW

1D
-0.09%
1M
-0.41%
YTD
0.15%
6M
0.41%
1Y
3.40%
3Y*
3.95%
5Y*
0.10%
10Y*

VEMT.L

1D
0.08%
1M
-0.88%
YTD
0.61%
6M
1.59%
1Y
8.81%
3Y*
8.42%
5Y*
2.04%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
BNDW
Vanguard Total World Bond ETF
0.15%5.02%2.42%7.18%-12.88%-2.10%6.22%8.37%1.21%
VEMT.L
Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing
0.61%11.94%6.28%8.91%-15.34%-1.46%5.67%14.08%0.81%

Correlation

The correlation between BNDW and VEMT.L is 0.51, 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

0.51

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

0.61

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

0.56

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 7, 2018

0.46

The correlation between BNDW and VEMT.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (all time) to 0.61 (3 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

BNDW vs. VEMT.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BNDW
BNDW Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
BNDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNDW Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
BNDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
BNDW Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

VEMT.L
VEMT.L Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
VEMT.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
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.

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) and Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing (VEMT.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.


BNDWVEMT.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.74

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.26

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.26

2.30

-1.03

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.52

8.42

-4.90

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BNDW Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is lower than the VEMT.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BNDW and VEMT.L, 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


BNDWVEMT.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.02

1.52

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.02

0.25

-0.23

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.38

-0.02

Drawdowns

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BNDW drawdown since its inception was -17.22%, smaller than the maximum VEMT.L drawdown of -24.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNDW and VEMT.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BNDWVEMT.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.22%

-24.08%

+6.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.70%

-3.82%

+1.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.27%

-6.35%

+2.08%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.93%

-24.05%

+7.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.80%

-1.24%

-0.56%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.97%

-5.08%

+0.11%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.97%

1.04%

-0.07%

Volatility

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) is 1.25%, while Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing (VEMT.L) has a volatility of 1.83%. This indicates that BNDW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VEMT.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BNDWVEMT.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.25%

1.83%

-0.58%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.64%

4.53%

-1.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.34%

5.79%

-2.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.21%

8.14%

-2.93%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.90%

8.62%

-3.72%

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

BNDW has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than VEMT.L's 0.25% 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

BNDW vs. VEMT.L - Dividend Comparison

BNDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.23%, less than VEMT.L's 5.92% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
BNDW
Vanguard Total World Bond ETF
4.23%4.12%3.90%3.73%2.02%2.58%1.56%3.05%1.66%0.00%
VEMT.L
Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing
5.92%6.17%5.74%5.56%4.88%3.81%4.47%4.46%4.45%4.81%

Frequently Asked Questions


BNDW and VEMT.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, BNDW is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

BNDW is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for VEMT.L.

BNDW is categorized as Global Bonds, while VEMT.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. BNDW tracks Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index, while VEMT.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for BNDW and 0.25% for VEMT.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BNDW and VEMT.L

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