PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CNYA vs. EMBE.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CNYA vs. EMBE.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) and EMBE.L (iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - CNYA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while EMBE.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPM EMBI Global Diversified Hedge TR EUR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNYA returned -1.14%/yr vs -1.33%/yr for EMBE.L. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNYA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EMBE.L.

Performance

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNYA is traded in USD, while EMBE.L is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the EMBE.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNYA achieves a 6.74% return, which is significantly higher than EMBE.L's -0.32% return.

CNYA

1D
0.96%
1M
-4.72%
YTD
6.74%
6M
10.09%
1Y
32.54%
3Y*
10.74%
5Y*
-1.14%
10Y*
—

EMBE.L

1D
0.70%
1M
-0.15%
YTD
-0.32%
6M
0.19%
1Y
8.36%
3Y*
9.87%
5Y*
-1.33%
10Y*
1.42%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CNYA
iShares MSCI China A ETF		6.74%26.48%10.78%-13.76%-26.51%3.53%41.54%35.95%-26.56%30.99%
EMBE.L
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)		-0.32%25.90%-2.43%11.06%-25.61%-9.86%12.50%10.09%-12.68%23.42%

Correlation

The correlation between CNYA and EMBE.L is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.41

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

0.29

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

0.29

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2016

0.28

The correlation between CNYA and EMBE.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (all time) to 0.41 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CNYA
EMBE.L

Technology

30.0%

-

Industrials

18.3%

-

Financial Services

17.0%
-0.3%

Basic Materials

10.6%

-

Consumer Defensive

6.7%

-

Consumer Cyclical

5.7%

-

Healthcare

3.8%

-

Energy

3.2%

-

Utilities

3.2%

-

Real Estate

0.7%

-

Communication Services

0.6%

-

Technology

CNYA
30.0%
EMBE.L

-

Industrials

CNYA
18.3%
EMBE.L

-

Financial Services

CNYA
17.0%
EMBE.L
-0.3%

Basic Materials

CNYA
10.6%
EMBE.L

-

Consumer Defensive

CNYA
6.7%
EMBE.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

CNYA
5.7%
EMBE.L

-

Healthcare

CNYA
3.8%
EMBE.L

-

Energy

CNYA
3.2%
EMBE.L

-

Utilities

CNYA
3.2%
EMBE.L

-

Real Estate

CNYA
0.7%
EMBE.L

-

Communication Services

CNYA
0.6%
EMBE.L

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI China A ETF

iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)

Often compared with CNYA:
CNYA vs. MCHICNYA vs. ASHRCNYA vs. ICHN.ASCNYA vs. KBACNYA vs. FLCHCNYA vs. ICGA.DECNYA vs. GXC
Often compared with EMBE.L:
EMBE.L vs. EMBEMBE.L vs. CEMBEMBE.L vs. SEMB.LEMBE.L vs. XUHY.LEMBE.L vs. VWOBEMBE.L vs. PCYEMBE.L vs. JEPQ

Return for Risk

CNYA vs. EMBE.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CNYA
CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
EMBE.L
EMBE.L Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
EMBE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
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.

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.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.

CNYAEMBE.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.84
0.86

+0.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.54
1.31

+1.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.16

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.31

1.04

+3.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.93

3.33

+8.61

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNYA Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is higher than the EMBE.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNYA and EMBE.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNYA drawdown since its inception was -49.49%, which is greater than EMBE.L's maximum drawdown of -44.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNYA and EMBE.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNYAEMBE.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-49.49%

-44.54%

-4.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.59%

-8.00%

+0.41%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-33.35%

-13.39%

-19.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-44.65%

-42.82%

-1.83%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.49%

-44.54%

-4.95%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.44%

-9.21%

-6.23%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.67%

-14.99%

-5.68%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.74%

2.51%

+0.23%

Volatility

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) has a higher volatility of 6.52% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L) at 3.01%. This indicates that CNYA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMBE.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CNYAEMBE.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.52%

3.01%

+3.51%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.84%

7.40%

+5.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.76%

9.77%

+7.99%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.84%

13.68%

+10.16%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.56%

13.36%

+10.20%

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNYA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than EMBE.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNYA vs. EMBE.L - Dividend Comparison

CNYA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, less than EMBE.L's 5.13% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNYA
iShares MSCI China A ETF		1.79%1.92%2.51%4.23%2.69%1.11%1.06%1.21%3.92%0.97%1.38%0.00%
EMBE.L
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)		5.13%5.44%5.64%5.50%5.39%3.92%3.85%4.77%5.75%3.88%5.36%4.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

CNYA and EMBE.L have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

EMBE.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNYA.

CNYA is categorized as China Equities, while EMBE.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. CNYA tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while EMBE.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified Hedge TR EUR. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNYA and 0.50% for EMBE.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNYA and EMBE.L

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