CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CEBG.L (VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A) and GDGB.L (VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEBG.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China NR USD, while GDGB.L is a Gold fund tracking the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEBG.L returned -0.04%/yr vs 37.68%/yr for GDGB.L. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEBG.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for GDGB.L.

Performance

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) and VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEBG.L achieves a -3.84% return, which is significantly lower than GDGB.L's 0.91% return.

CEBG.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: -2.19%
• YTD: -3.84%
• 6M: -5.52%
• 1Y: 9.77%
• 3Y*: -0.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GDGB.L

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -4.88%
• YTD: 0.91%
• 6M: 6.31%
• 1Y: 65.52%
• 3Y*: 37.68%
• 5Y*: 20.20%
• 10Y*: —

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

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CEBG.L VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A	-3.84%	15.45%	1.26%	-14.25%	-19.48%	6.97%
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	0.91%	138.26%	11.24%	3.69%	3.04%	10.64%

Correlation

The correlation between CEBG.L and GDGB.L is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2021	0.16

The correlation between CEBG.L and GDGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (all time) to 0.31 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEBG.L

CEBG.L Risk / Return Rank: 18
CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CEBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
CEBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CEBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CEBG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 17

GDGB.L

GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 42
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 41
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) and VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.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.

	CEBG.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.62	1.55	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.93	2.01	-1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.26	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.73	2.23	-1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.65	5.70	-4.05
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is lower than the GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEBG.L and GDGB.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CEBG.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62	1.55	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.16	0.51	-0.67

Drawdowns

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEBG.L drawdown since its inception was -46.41%, which is greater than GDGB.L's maximum drawdown of -40.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEBG.L and GDGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEBG.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.41%	-40.80%	-5.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.28%	-28.97%	+15.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.10%	-28.97%	-1.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.24%	-24.72%	+0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.43%	-17.52%	-6.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.89%	11.36%	-5.47%

Volatility

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) is 4.18%, while VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a volatility of 14.28%. This indicates that CEBG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEBG.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.18%	14.28%	-10.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.61%	33.43%	-22.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.81%	41.77%	-25.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.29%	32.58%	-8.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.29%	32.11%	-7.82%

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEBG.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than GDGB.L's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEBG.L vs. GDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEBG.L nor GDGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEBG.L and GDGB.L in my portfolio?

CEBG.L and GDGB.L have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEBG.L or GDGB.L?

On fees, GDGB.L is cheaper at 0.53% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEBG.L or GDGB.L?

GDGB.L is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEBG.L.

What is the main difference between CEBG.L and GDGB.L?

CEBG.L is categorized as China Equities, while GDGB.L is Gold. CEBG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CEBG.L and 0.53% for GDGB.L.