CBND.L vs. EMLB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and EMLB.L (PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - CBND.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while EMLB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Currency Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CBND.L returned 2.85%/yr vs 3.98%/yr for EMLB.L. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBND.L charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for EMLB.L.

Performance

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) and PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMLB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBND.L achieves a 4.87% return, which is significantly higher than EMLB.L's 2.92% return.

CBND.L

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.02%
• 6M: 4.64%
• YTD: 4.87%
• 1Y: 7.44%
• 3Y*: 5.57%
• 5Y*: 2.85%
• 10Y*: —

EMLB.L

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 0.05%
• 6M: 2.30%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 1Y: 8.68%
• 3Y*: 5.90%
• 5Y*: 3.98%
• 10Y*: 3.11%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CBND.L vs. EMLB.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%
EMLB.L PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	2.92%	17.08%	-3.25%	13.74%	-5.70%	-5.53%	1.91%	2.00%

Correlation

The correlation between CBND.L and EMLB.L is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019	0.39

Return for Risk

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBND.L

CBND.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

EMLB.L

EMLB.L Risk / Return Rank: 40
EMLB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
EMLB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
EMLB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 43
EMLB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
EMLB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

CBND.L vs. EMLB.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 PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMLB.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	EMLB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	1.20	+1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.57	1.83	+1.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.23	+0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.45	1.54	+5.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.48	5.03	+13.45

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBND.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is higher than the EMLB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBND.L and EMLB.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.

Drawdowns

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBND.L drawdown since its inception was -11.48%, smaller than the maximum EMLB.L drawdown of -29.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBND.L and EMLB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBND.L	EMLB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.48%	-29.75%	+18.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.99%	-5.48%	+4.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.66%	-7.50%	+3.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.48%	-20.09%	+8.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-21.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-1.04%	+0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.80%	-9.33%	+6.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.40%	1.68%	-1.28%

Volatility

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) is 0.89%, while PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMLB.L) has a volatility of 2.03%. This indicates that CBND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMLB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBND.L	EMLB.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%	6.19%	-3.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.11%	7.00%	-3.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.02%	9.48%	-4.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.94%	9.58%	-4.64%

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBND.L has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than EMLB.L's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBND.L vs. EMLB.L - Dividend Comparison

CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, while EMLB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
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%
EMLB.L PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBND.L and EMLB.L in my portfolio?

CBND.L and EMLB.L have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CBND.L or EMLB.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBND.L or EMLB.L?

CBND.L is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for EMLB.L.

What is the main difference between CBND.L and EMLB.L?

CBND.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while EMLB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while EMLB.L tracks PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Currency Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for CBND.L and 0.39% for EMLB.L.