CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L
CNYB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and IBTG.L (iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - CNYB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index, while IBTG.L is a Short-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNYB.L returned 3.58%/yr vs 1.57%/yr for IBTG.L. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. CNYB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBTG.L.
Performance
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNYB.L achieves a 5.09% return, which is significantly higher than IBTG.L's 0.83% return.
CNYB.L
- 1D
- 0.24%
- 1M
- -0.35%
- 6M
- 4.32%
- YTD
- 5.09%
- 1Y
- 7.12%
- 3Y*
- 4.85%
- 5Y*
- 3.58%
- 10Y*
- —
IBTG.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 1.04%
- YTD
- 0.83%
- 1Y
- 3.25%
- 3Y*
- 4.10%
- 5Y*
- 1.57%
- 10Y*
- —
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 5.09% | -2.20% | 6.65% | -4.09% | 6.21% | 9.69% | -19.80% | 0.53% |
IBTG.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 0.83% | 5.08% | 3.75% | 3.65% | -4.56% | -0.82% | 2.70% | 0.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNYB.L and IBTG.L is -0.03, 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 | -0.03 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.08 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2019 | -0.06 |
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
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNYB.L
IBTG.L
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) and iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (IBTG.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.
| CNYB.L | IBTG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.73 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.32 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.60 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.58 | 4.84 | -2.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.11 | 15.08 | -8.96 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNYB.L drawdown since its inception was -25.82%, which is greater than IBTG.L's maximum drawdown of -6.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNYB.L and IBTG.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNYB.L | IBTG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.82% | -6.15% | -19.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.75% | -0.67% | -2.08% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.03% | -0.85% | -8.18% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.44% | -6.13% | -9.31% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.24% | 0.00% | -7.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.52% | -1.25% | -11.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.16% | 0.22% | +0.94% |
Volatility
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) has a higher volatility of 1.24% compared to iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (IBTG.L) at 0.43%. This indicates that CNYB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNYB.L | IBTG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.24% | 0.43% | +0.81% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.69% | 1.16% | +3.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.29% | 1.74% | +4.55% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.65% | 2.43% | +5.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.47% | 2.07% | +9.40% |
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNYB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTG.L's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNYB.L vs. IBTG.L - Dividend Comparison
CNYB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, less than IBTG.L's 3.86% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.72% | 1.89% | 2.24% | 2.55% | 2.72% | 2.74% | 2.65% | 0.72% | 0.00% |
IBTG.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 3.86% | 4.08% | 4.12% | 2.92% | 0.76% | 0.59% | 1.66% | 2.35% | 0.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CNYB.L and IBTG.L have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBTG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBTG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNYB.L.
CNYB.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while IBTG.L is Short-Term Bond. CNYB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index, while IBTG.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNYB.L and 0.10% for IBTG.L.
Find the right allocation for CNYB.L and IBTG.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