CBON vs. EMLC
CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) and EMLC (VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds from VanEck - CBON tracks the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index while EMLC tracks the J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index Emerging Markets Global Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CBON returned 2.93%/yr vs 2.14%/yr for EMLC. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBON charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for EMLC.
Performance
CBON vs. EMLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 5.41% return, which is significantly higher than EMLC's 0.92% return. Over the past 10 years, CBON has outperformed EMLC with an annualized return of 2.93%, while EMLC has yielded a comparatively lower 2.14% annualized return.
CBON
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- 1.75%
- YTD
- 5.41%
- 6M
- 6.88%
- 1Y
- 9.26%
- 3Y*
- 5.05%
- 5Y*
- 2.03%
- 10Y*
- 2.93%
EMLC
- 1D
- -0.55%
- 1M
- 1.06%
- YTD
- 0.92%
- 6M
- 1.94%
- 1Y
- 9.54%
- 3Y*
- 6.92%
- 5Y*
- 1.17%
- 10Y*
- 2.14%
CBON vs. EMLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.41% | 5.46% | 1.85% | 2.92% | -7.99% | 5.93% | 12.01% | 2.67% | 1.88% | 6.96% |
EMLC VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 0.92% | 18.81% | -2.97% | 11.18% | -10.58% | -9.72% | 3.08% | 9.79% | -7.57% | 13.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBON and EMLC is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2014 | 0.33 |
The correlation between CBON and EMLC shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (all time) to 0.48 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
CBON vs. EMLC — Risk / Return Rank
CBON
EMLC
CBON vs. EMLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC). 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.
| CBON | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.31 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.13 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | 1.27 | +0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.94 | 1.55 | +5.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 25.86 | 5.34 | +20.52 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CBON | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.70 | 1.39 | +1.31 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.41 | 0.13 | +0.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.53 | 0.21 | +0.31 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 0.11 | +0.31 |
Drawdowns
CBON vs. EMLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, smaller than the maximum EMLC drawdown of -32.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and EMLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBON | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.13% | -32.43% | +18.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.34% | -6.19% | +4.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.56% | -9.15% | +4.59% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.13% | -25.26% | +11.13% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.13% | -26.47% | +12.34% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.02% | -4.28% | +4.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -14.37% | +10.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.36% | 1.79% | -1.43% |
Volatility
CBON vs. EMLC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) is 0.91%, while VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) has a volatility of 2.21%. This indicates that CBON experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBON | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.91% | 2.21% | -1.30% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.62% | 5.99% | -3.37% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.45% | 6.90% | -3.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.93% | 9.13% | -4.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.58% | 10.05% | -4.47% |
CBON vs. EMLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than EMLC's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
CBON vs. EMLC - Dividend Comparison
CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, less than EMLC's 6.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 1.52% | 1.66% | 2.15% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.87% | 3.87% | 3.39% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% |
EMLC VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 6.19% | 5.91% | 6.55% | 5.97% | 5.54% | 5.25% | 4.90% | 6.25% | 6.50% | 5.34% | 5.32% | 6.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CBON and EMLC have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EMLC has higher volatility (2.21%) compared to CBON (0.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBON dropped -14.13% vs EMLC's -32.43%.
On 10-year performance, CBON leads with 2.93% vs 2.14% for EMLC. On fees, EMLC is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 0.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CBON has performed better with a 2.93% return vs 2.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMLC is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CBON.
EMLC has the higher dividend yield at 6.19%, compared with 1.52% for CBON.
CBON tracks ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index, while EMLC tracks J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index Emerging Markets Global Core Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CBON and 0.30% for EMLC.
CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 1.39), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for CBON and EMLC
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