CBON vs. NEMD
CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) and NEMD (Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. CBON is passively managed, while NEMD is actively managed. Their 0.26 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CBON charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for NEMD.
Performance
CBON vs. NEMD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 5.60% return, which is significantly higher than NEMD's 3.47% return.
CBON
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 4.91%
- YTD
- 5.60%
- 1Y
- 9.19%
- 3Y*
- 5.03%
- 5Y*
- 2.07%
- 10Y*
- 2.94%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.46%
NEMD
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- -1.04%
- 6M
- 1.88%
- YTD
- 3.47%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $134.57K | $162.86K | $181.24K | |
| $328.32K | $489.11K | $564.01K |
CBON vs. NEMD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.60% | 3.35% |
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF | 3.47% | 7.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBON and NEMD is 0.26, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 11, 2025 | 0.26 |
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. NEMD — Risk / Return Rank
CBON
NEMD
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CBON vs. NEMD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD). 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.
| CBON | NEMD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.18 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 27.79 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CBON vs. NEMD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, which is greater than NEMD's maximum drawdown of -4.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and NEMD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBON | NEMD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.13% | -4.43% | -9.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.34% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.56% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.13% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.04% | -1.35% | +1.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.94% | -0.59% | -3.35% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.35% | — | — |
Volatility
CBON vs. NEMD - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBON | NEMD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.22% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.76% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.59% | 6.44% | -2.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.87% | 6.44% | -1.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.54% | 6.44% | -0.90% |
CBON vs. NEMD - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than NEMD's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
CBON vs. NEMD - Dividend Comparison
CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, less than NEMD's 5.81% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 1.37% | 1.66% | 2.15% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.87% | 3.87% | 3.39% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% |
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF | 5.81% | 2.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CBON and NEMD have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CBON is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CBON is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for NEMD.
NEMD has the higher dividend yield at 5.81%, compared with 1.37% for CBON.
They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Neuberger Berman. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CBON and 0.60% for NEMD.
Find the right allocation for CBON and NEMD
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