PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEMB vs. BSCQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEMB vs. BSCQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) and BSCQ (Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - CEMB tracks the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified while BSCQ tracks the NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEMB returned 1.97%/yr vs 1.47%/yr for BSCQ. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEMB charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for BSCQ.

Performance

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CEMB having a 1.49% return and BSCQ slightly higher at 1.55%.

CEMB

1D
-0.20%
1M
0.46%
YTD
1.49%
6M
1.83%
1Y
7.31%
3Y*
7.31%
5Y*
1.97%
10Y*
3.49%

BSCQ

1D
0.08%
1M
0.34%
YTD
1.55%
6M
1.92%
1Y
4.41%
3Y*
5.06%
5Y*
1.47%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CEMB
iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF		1.49%8.86%5.81%8.37%-12.58%-0.59%6.77%13.90%-2.57%7.11%
BSCQ
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF		1.55%5.02%4.86%5.71%-8.31%-1.68%9.41%13.94%-2.40%5.93%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMB and BSCQ is 0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.04

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.53

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2016

0.44

Over the past year, the correlation between CEMB and BSCQ has dropped to 0.04 - well below their long-term average of 0.44, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CEMB
BSCQ

Industrials

100.0%
6.0%

Basic Materials

-

0.5%

Communication Services

-

1.5%

Consumer Cyclical

-

6.1%

Consumer Defensive

-

3.9%

Energy

-

3.0%

Financial Services

-

32.7%

Healthcare

-

7.4%

Real Estate

-

2.9%

Technology

-

10.8%

Utilities

-

3.5%

Industrials

CEMB
100.0%
BSCQ
6.0%

Basic Materials

CEMB

-

BSCQ
0.5%

Communication Services

CEMB

-

BSCQ
1.5%

Consumer Cyclical

CEMB

-

BSCQ
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

CEMB

-

BSCQ
3.9%

Energy

CEMB

-

BSCQ
3.0%

Financial Services

CEMB

-

BSCQ
32.7%

Healthcare

CEMB

-

BSCQ
7.4%

Real Estate

CEMB

-

BSCQ
2.9%

Technology

CEMB

-

BSCQ
10.8%

Utilities

CEMB

-

BSCQ
3.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF

Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF

Often compared with CEMB:
CEMB vs. EMBE.LCEMB vs. HYEMCEMB vs. IAGGCEMB vs. AGGG.LCEMB vs. ERNS.LCEMB vs. VEMT.LCEMB vs. VUCP.DE
Often compared with BSCQ:
BSCQ vs. BSCUBSCQ vs. BSCPBSCQ vs. BSJQBSCQ vs. SPBOBSCQ vs. TOTLBSCQ vs. IBDRBSCQ vs. DBND

Return for Risk

CEMB vs. BSCQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CEMB
CEMB Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
CEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank
BSCQ
BSCQ Risk / Return Rank: 9999
Overall Rank
BSCQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BSCQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
BSCQ Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
BSCQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
BSCQ Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ). 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.

CEMBBSCQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.40
7.06

-4.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.61
15.22

-11.61

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

3.45

-1.97

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.55

43.24

-40.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.06

179.65

-168.59

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMB Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is lower than the BSCQ Sharpe Ratio of 7.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMB and BSCQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CEMBBSCQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.40

7.06

-4.66

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

0.45

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.56

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.60

-0.11

Drawdowns

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMB drawdown since its inception was -20.84%, which is greater than BSCQ's maximum drawdown of -16.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMB and BSCQ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEMBBSCQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.84%

-16.50%

-4.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.88%

-0.10%

-2.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.85%

-1.13%

-2.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.48%

-13.02%

-7.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.84%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.24%

0.00%

-0.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.66%

-2.85%

-0.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.66%

0.02%

+0.64%

Volatility

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Volatility Comparison

iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) has a higher volatility of 1.08% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ) at 0.17%. This indicates that CEMB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSCQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEMBBSCQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.08%

0.17%

+0.91%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.43%

0.43%

+2.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.06%

0.63%

+2.43%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.63%

3.30%

+2.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.30%

4.77%

+1.53%

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BSCQ's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMB vs. BSCQ - Dividend Comparison

CEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.13%, more than BSCQ's 4.12% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BSCQ
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF		4.12%4.14%4.05%3.53%2.54%1.91%2.42%2.96%3.32%2.92%0.51%0.00%
CEMB
iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF		5.13%5.14%5.11%4.77%4.29%3.51%3.86%4.19%4.66%4.06%4.26%4.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEMB and BSCQ have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CEMB has higher volatility (1.08%) compared to BSCQ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEMB dropped -20.84% vs BSCQ's -16.50%.

On 5-year performance, CEMB leads with 1.97% vs 1.47% for BSCQ. On fees, BSCQ is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, BSCQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, CEMB has performed better with a 1.97% return vs 1.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BSCQ is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CEMB.

CEMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.13%, compared with 4.12% for BSCQ.

CEMB tracks JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified, while BSCQ tracks NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CEMB and 0.10% for BSCQ.

BSCQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.06 vs 2.40), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEMB and BSCQ

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