CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE
CEMF.DE (iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc) and PPFB.DE (iShares Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMF.DE is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE US Treasury 7-10 Year (EUR Hedged) Index, while PPFB.DE is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEMF.DE charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for PPFB.DE.
Performance
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEMF.DE achieves a -1.42% return, which is significantly lower than PPFB.DE's 2.74% return.
CEMF.DE
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- 0.27%
- YTD
- -1.42%
- 6M
- -0.94%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PPFB.DE
- 1D
- 0.61%
- 1M
- -4.00%
- YTD
- 2.74%
- 6M
- 5.47%
- 1Y
- 31.35%
- 3Y*
- 28.05%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CEMF.DE iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc | -1.42% | 2.99% |
PPFB.DE iShares Physical Gold ETC | 2.74% | 31.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEMF.DE and PPFB.DE is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 29, 2025 | 0.17 |
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
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE — Risk / Return Rank
CEMF.DE
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PPFB.DE
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc (CEMF.DE) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE). 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.
| CEMF.DE | PPFB.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.26 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.81 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 4.60 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEMF.DE drawdown since its inception was -4.45%, smaller than the maximum PPFB.DE drawdown of -16.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMF.DE and PPFB.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEMF.DE | PPFB.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.45% | -16.60% | +12.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -16.60% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -16.60% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.97% | -15.00% | +12.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.19% | -4.42% | +3.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 6.55% | — |
Volatility
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEMF.DE | PPFB.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.11% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 20.18% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.63% | 23.12% | -18.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.63% | 16.13% | -11.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.63% | 16.13% | -11.50% |
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEMF.DE has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than PPFB.DE's 0.12% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
CEMF.DE vs. PPFB.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither CEMF.DE nor PPFB.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CEMF.DE and PPFB.DE have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CEMF.DE is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CEMF.DE is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for PPFB.DE.
CEMF.DE is categorized as Government Bonds, while PPFB.DE is Precious Metals. CEMF.DE tracks ICE US Treasury 7-10 Year (EUR Hedged) Index, while PPFB.DE tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for CEMF.DE and 0.12% for PPFB.DE.
Find the right allocation for CEMF.DE and PPFB.DE
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