CNYB.L vs. JMBA.L
CNYB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and JMBA.L (JPM USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - CNYB.L tracks the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index while JMBA.L tracks the J.P. Morgan Emerging Market Risk Aware Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNYB.L returned 3.58%/yr vs 1.78%/yr for JMBA.L. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNYB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for JMBA.L.
Performance
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CNYB.L is traded in GBP, while JMBA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the JMBA.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNYB.L achieves a 5.09% return, which is significantly higher than JMBA.L's 1.77% 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*
- —
JMBA.L
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- -1.82%
- 6M
- 1.24%
- YTD
- 1.77%
- 1Y
- 8.98%
- 3Y*
- 6.02%
- 5Y*
- 1.78%
- 10Y*
- —
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.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% | 1.54% |
JMBA.L JPM USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 1.77% | 5.19% | 3.79% | 4.04% | -6.16% | -1.52% | 2.27% | 1.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNYB.L and JMBA.L is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2019 | 0.32 |
The correlation between CNYB.L and JMBA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (3 years) to 0.44 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. JMBA.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNYB.L
JMBA.L
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.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 JPM USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (JMBA.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 | JMBA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.22 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.58 | 1.83 | +0.74 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.11 | 5.02 | +1.10 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNYB.L drawdown since its inception was -25.82%, which is greater than JMBA.L's maximum drawdown of -17.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNYB.L and JMBA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNYB.L | JMBA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.82% | -17.56% | -8.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.75% | -4.88% | +2.13% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.03% | -8.79% | -0.24% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.44% | -14.06% | -1.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.24% | -2.62% | -4.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.52% | -6.67% | -5.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.16% | 1.79% | -0.63% |
Volatility
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) is 1.24%, while JPM USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (JMBA.L) has a volatility of 1.75%. This indicates that CNYB.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than JMBA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNYB.L | JMBA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.24% | 1.75% | -0.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.69% | 5.93% | -1.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.29% | 7.23% | -0.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.65% | 9.33% | -1.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.47% | 10.98% | +0.49% |
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNYB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than JMBA.L's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNYB.L vs. JMBA.L - Dividend Comparison
CNYB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, while JMBA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
JMBA.L JPM USD Emerging Markets Sovereign Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CNYB.L and JMBA.L have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CNYB.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CNYB.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for JMBA.L.
CNYB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index, while JMBA.L tracks J.P. Morgan Emerging Market Risk Aware Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNYB.L and 0.39% for JMBA.L.
Find the right allocation for CNYB.L and JMBA.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