CBND.L vs. JMBP.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and JMBP.L (JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Sovereign 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 JMBP.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JP Morgan Emerging Markets Risk-Aware Bond (GBP Hedged). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CBND.L returned 2.83%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for JMBP.L. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBND.L charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for JMBP.L.

Performance

CBND.L vs. JMBP.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 JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (dist) (JMBP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CBND.L is traded in USD, while JMBP.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the JMBP.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 4.76% return, which is significantly higher than JMBP.L's 1.59% return.

CBND.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -0.16%
• 6M: 4.42%
• YTD: 4.76%
• 1Y: 7.27%
• 3Y*: 5.71%
• 5Y*: 2.83%
• 10Y*: —

JMBP.L

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 0.76%
• 6M: 2.31%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 1Y: 9.50%
• 3Y*: 8.04%
• 5Y*: 0.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

CBND.L vs. JMBP.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)	4.76%	5.04%	4.67%	1.28%	-5.17%	7.61%	8.70%	1.82%
JMBP.L JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (dist)	1.59%	21.65%	-0.09%	14.10%	-26.39%	-3.74%	6.85%	5.40%

Correlation

The correlation between CBND.L and JMBP.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	0.37
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2019	0.39

Return for Risk

CBND.L vs. JMBP.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: 93
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 91
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

JMBP.L

JMBP.L Risk / Return Rank: 68
JMBP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
JMBP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
JMBP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 74
JMBP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
JMBP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. JMBP.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 JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (dist) (JMBP.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	JMBP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.33	1.01	+1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	1.52	+1.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.18	+0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.28	1.28	+6.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.01	4.07	+13.94

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

The current CBND.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is higher than the JMBP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBND.L and JMBP.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. JMBP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBND.L drawdown since its inception was -11.48%, smaller than the maximum JMBP.L drawdown of -42.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBND.L and JMBP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBND.L	JMBP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.48%	-42.43%	+30.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.99%	-7.69%	+6.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.66%	-13.54%	+9.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.48%	-41.86%	+30.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.31%	-1.89%	+1.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.80%	-14.62%	+11.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.40%	2.41%	-2.01%

Volatility

CBND.L vs. JMBP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) is 0.90%, while JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (dist) (JMBP.L) has a volatility of 2.19%. This indicates that CBND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than JMBP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBND.L	JMBP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.90%	2.19%	-1.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.58%	7.59%	-5.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.11%	9.70%	-6.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.01%	14.22%	-9.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.94%	16.05%	-11.11%

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

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

Dividends

CBND.L vs. JMBP.L - Dividend Comparison

CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, less than JMBP.L's 5.84% yield.

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%
JMBP.L JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (dist)	5.84%	5.61%	5.83%	5.24%	5.16%	3.70%	4.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CBND.L and JMBP.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.

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

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

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

CBND.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while JMBP.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while JMBP.L tracks JP Morgan Emerging Markets Risk-Aware Bond (GBP Hedged). They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for CBND.L and 0.39% for JMBP.L.