CBON vs. BLV
Compare and contrast key facts about VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV).
CBON and BLV are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CBON is a passively managed fund by VanEck that tracks the performance of the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. It was launched on Nov 10, 2014. BLV is a passively managed fund by Vanguard that tracks the performance of the Barclays U.S. Long Government/Credit Float Adjusted Index. It was launched on Apr 3, 2007. Both CBON and BLV are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CBON or BLV.
Key characteristics
| CBON | BLV | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 1.97% | -0.41% |
| 1Y Return | 4.92% | 12.08% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -0.83% | -7.92% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 3.05% | -2.28% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 1.93% | 1.70% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.05 | 1.07 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.58 | 1.57 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.20 | 1.18 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.52 | 0.37 |
| Martin Ratio | 5.50 | 2.97 |
| Ulcer Index | 0.91% | 4.33% |
| Daily Std Dev | 4.77% | 12.01% |
| Max Drawdown | -14.13% | -38.29% |
| Current Drawdown | -5.22% | -26.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBON and BLV is 0.11, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
CBON vs. BLV - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 1.97% return, which is significantly higher than BLV's -0.41% return. Over the past 10 years, CBON has outperformed BLV with an annualized return of 1.93%, while BLV has yielded a comparatively lower 1.70% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CBON vs. BLV - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BLV's 0.04% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CBON vs. BLV - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV). 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.
Dividends
CBON vs. BLV - Dividend Comparison
CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, less than BLV's 4.45% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 2.11% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.88% | 3.88% | 3.40% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% | 0.28% | 0.00% |
BLV Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF | 4.45% | 4.06% | 4.17% | 3.37% | 5.84% | 3.57% | 4.07% | 3.63% | 4.16% | 4.37% | 3.90% | 4.85% |
Drawdowns
CBON vs. BLV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, smaller than the maximum BLV drawdown of -38.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and BLV. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CBON vs. BLV - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) is 1.94%, while Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV) has a volatility of 3.99%. This indicates that CBON experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BLV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.