BPH vs. EMB
BPH (BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF) and EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BPH is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Precidian, while EMB is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan EMBI Global Core Index. BPH is actively managed, while EMB is passively managed. Their -0.50 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BPH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for EMB.
Performance
BPH vs. EMB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BPH
- 1D
- 2.00%
- 1M
- 18.84%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
EMB
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- -1.60%
- 6M
- 0.59%
- YTD
- 0.90%
- 1Y
- 6.95%
- 3Y*
- 8.45%
- 5Y*
- 1.48%
- 10Y*
- 2.84%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.60%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $53.46K | $52.99K | $51.54K | |
| $536.38M | $549.68M | $593.36M |
BPH vs. EMB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF | 5.67% |
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 0.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between BPH and EMB is -0.50, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2026 | -0.50 |
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
BPH vs. EMB — Risk / Return Rank
BPH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
EMB
BPH vs. EMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH) 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.
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.
| BPH | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.24 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.62 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 6.59 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BPH vs. EMB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BPH drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum EMB drawdown of -34.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BPH and EMB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BPH | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.58% | -34.70% | +19.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -4.51% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -6.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -28.74% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -28.74% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -1.82% | +1.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.64% | -5.02% | -0.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.10% | — |
Volatility
BPH vs. EMB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BPH | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 1.40% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 4.77% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.58% | 5.67% | +22.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.58% | 9.77% | +18.81% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.58% | 9.95% | +18.63% |
BPH vs. EMB - Expense Ratio Comparison
BPH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EMB's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
BPH vs. EMB - Dividend Comparison
BPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.48%, less than EMB's 5.14% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF | 0.48% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 | 4.71% | 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
BPH and EMB have a correlation of -0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BPH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BPH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for EMB.
EMB has the higher dividend yield at 4.71%, compared with 0.48% for BPH.
BPH is categorized as Energy Equities, while EMB is Emerging Markets Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Precidian and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for BPH and 0.39% for EMB.
Find the right allocation for BPH 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