CBND.L vs. EMHG.L
CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and EMHG.L (iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - CBND.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while EMHG.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified Core. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CBND.L returned 2.85%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EMHG.L. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBND.L charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EMHG.L.
Performance
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CBND.L is traded in USD, while EMHG.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the EMHG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBND.L achieves a 4.87% return, which is significantly higher than EMHG.L's 1.63% return.
CBND.L
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- -0.07%
- 6M
- 4.49%
- YTD
- 4.87%
- 1Y
- 7.30%
- 3Y*
- 5.57%
- 5Y*
- 2.85%
- 10Y*
- —
EMHG.L
- 1D
- -0.50%
- 1M
- -0.52%
- 6M
- 2.26%
- YTD
- 1.63%
- 1Y
- 10.27%
- 3Y*
- 9.35%
- 5Y*
- 0.45%
- 10Y*
- —
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 4.87% | 5.04% | 4.67% | 1.28% | -5.17% | 7.61% | 8.70% | 3.08% |
EMHG.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 1.63% | 21.96% | 3.55% | 14.71% | -28.49% | -3.39% | 6.66% | 4.48% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBND.L and EMHG.L is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019 | 0.37 |
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
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L — Risk / Return Rank
CBND.L
EMHG.L
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.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.
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.
| CBND.L | EMHG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.18 | +0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.45 | 1.40 | +6.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.48 | 4.56 | +13.92 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBND.L drawdown since its inception was -11.48%, smaller than the maximum EMHG.L drawdown of -44.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBND.L and EMHG.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBND.L | EMHG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.48% | -44.35% | +32.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.99% | -7.32% | +6.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.66% | -13.72% | +10.06% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.48% | -43.78% | +32.30% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.21% | -1.44% | +1.23% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.80% | -13.88% | +11.08% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.40% | 2.25% | -1.85% |
Volatility
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) is 0.89%, while iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.L) has a volatility of 2.03%. This indicates that CBND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMHG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBND.L | EMHG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.89% | 2.03% | -1.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.58% | 7.76% | -5.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.11% | 10.00% | -6.89% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.02% | 14.60% | -9.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.94% | 15.24% | -10.30% |
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBND.L has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than EMHG.L's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
CBND.L vs. EMHG.L - Dividend Comparison
CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, less than EMHG.L's 6.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 2.04% | 2.20% | 2.45% | 2.54% | 2.72% | 2.52% | 1.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EMHG.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 6.19% | 5.71% | 5.74% | 5.61% | 5.64% | 3.93% | 3.85% | 4.73% | 3.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CBND.L and EMHG.L have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CBND.L is cheaper at 0.24% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CBND.L is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMHG.L.
CBND.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while EMHG.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while EMHG.L tracks J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified Core. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for CBND.L and 0.50% for EMHG.L.
Find the right allocation for CBND.L and EMHG.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