CEMB vs. ERNS.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) and iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF (ERNS.L).
CEMB and ERNS.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CEMB is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. It was launched on Apr 17, 2012. ERNS.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Markit iBoxx GBP Liquid Investment Grade Ultrashort Index. It was launched on Nov 16, 2013. Both CEMB and ERNS.L 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: CEMB or ERNS.L.
Key characteristics
| CEMB | ERNS.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 6.14% | 4.69% |
| 1Y Return | 11.77% | 5.54% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 0.29% | 3.64% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 1.64% | 2.39% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 3.20% | 1.58% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 3.03 | 8.48 |
| Sortino Ratio | 4.71 | 18.20 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.63 | 3.70 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.08 | 49.71 |
| Martin Ratio | 20.42 | 226.66 |
| Ulcer Index | 0.62% | 0.02% |
| Daily Std Dev | 4.18% | 0.68% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.84% | -1.51% |
| Current Drawdown | -1.59% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEMB and ERNS.L is 0.18, 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
CEMB vs. ERNS.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CEMB achieves a 6.14% return, which is significantly higher than ERNS.L's 4.69% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMB has outperformed ERNS.L with an annualized return of 3.20%, while ERNS.L has yielded a comparatively lower 1.58% 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.
CEMB vs. ERNS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEMB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ERNS.L's 0.09% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CEMB vs. ERNS.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) and iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF (ERNS.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.
Dividends
CEMB vs. ERNS.L - Dividend Comparison
CEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.07%, less than ERNS.L's 5.25% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF | 5.07% | 4.77% | 4.28% | 3.51% | 3.86% | 4.19% | 4.66% | 4.06% | 4.25% | 4.76% | 4.23% | 3.93% |
ERNS.L iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF | 5.25% | 4.54% | 1.14% | 0.28% | 0.75% | 1.04% | 0.74% | 0.52% | 0.81% | 0.72% | 0.55% | 0.06% |
Drawdowns
CEMB vs. ERNS.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEMB drawdown since its inception was -20.84%, which is greater than ERNS.L's maximum drawdown of -1.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMB and ERNS.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CEMB vs. ERNS.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) is 1.16%, while iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF (ERNS.L) has a volatility of 2.48%. This indicates that CEMB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ERNS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.