CEMB vs. GDGB.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) and GDGB.L (VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMB is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified, while GDGB.L is a Gold fund tracking the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEMB returned 1.92%/yr vs 17.20%/yr for GDGB.L. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEMB charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for GDGB.L.

Performance

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - 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 VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEMB is traded in USD, while GDGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the GDGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEMB achieves a 1.54% return, which is significantly higher than GDGB.L's -7.35% return.

CEMB

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 1.54%
• 6M: 1.92%
• 1Y: 6.95%
• 3Y*: 7.15%
• 5Y*: 1.92%
• 10Y*: 3.55%

GDGB.L

• 1D: 5.31%
• 1M: -17.51%
• YTD: -7.35%
• 6M: -5.86%
• 1Y: 49.71%
• 3Y*: 38.28%
• 5Y*: 17.20%
• 10Y*: —

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

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF	1.54%	8.86%	5.81%	8.37%	-12.58%	-0.59%	6.77%	13.90%	-2.57%	2.18%
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	-7.35%	156.24%	9.38%	9.16%	-7.97%	-11.28%	23.23%	44.43%	-10.42%	1.81%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMB 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	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2017	0.21

The correlation between CEMB and GDGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (all time) to 0.31 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEMB	GDGB.L
Industrials	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	100.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CEMB vs. GDGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEMB

CEMB Risk / Return Rank: 71
CEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
CEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
CEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 63

GDGB.L

GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 35
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. GDGB.L - 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 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.

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.

	CEMB	GDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	1.11	+1.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	1.60	+1.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.20	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.31	1.41	+0.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.95	3.89	+6.06

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMB Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is higher than the GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMB 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.

Drawdowns

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMB drawdown since its inception was -20.84%, smaller than the maximum GDGB.L drawdown of -50.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMB and GDGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEMB	GDGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.84%	-50.68%	+29.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.88%	-35.18%	+32.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.85%	-35.18%	+31.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.48%	-46.27%	+25.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.84%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-31.02%	+30.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.65%	-17.81%	+14.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	12.73%	-12.06%

Volatility

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) is 1.20%, while VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a volatility of 14.95%. This indicates that CEMB 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

	CEMB	GDGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.20%	14.95%	-13.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.50%	36.15%	-33.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.11%	44.61%	-41.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	35.73%	-30.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.29%	34.29%	-28.00%

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMB has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than GDGB.L's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMB vs. GDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

CEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.13%, while GDGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CEMB 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, CEMB or GDGB.L?

On fees, CEMB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEMB or GDGB.L?

CEMB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for GDGB.L.

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

CEMB is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while GDGB.L is Gold. CEMB tracks JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified, while GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CEMB and 0.53% for GDGB.L.