CU31.L vs. CNYB.L
CU31.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc)) and CNYB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - CU31.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE US Treasury 1-3 Year Index, while CNYB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CU31.L returned 2.41%/yr vs 3.58%/yr for CNYB.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CU31.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNYB.L.
Performance
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CU31.L is traded in GBp, while CNYB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the CNYB.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CU31.L achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly lower than CNYB.L's 5.09% return.
CU31.L
- 1D
- 0.27%
- 1M
- -0.21%
- 6M
- 0.40%
- YTD
- 0.82%
- 1Y
- 2.96%
- 3Y*
- 3.27%
- 5Y*
- 2.41%
- 10Y*
- 1.49%
CNYB.L
- 1D
- 0.24%
- 1M
- -0.35%
- 6M
- 4.32%
- YTD
- 5.09%
- 1Y
- 7.12%
- 3Y*
- 4.85%
- 5Y*
- 3.58%
- 10Y*
- —
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CU31.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.82% | -1.98% | 5.81% | -1.58% | 7.69% | 0.60% | -0.40% | -4.60% |
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% |
Correlation
The correlation between CU31.L and CNYB.L is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2019 | 0.64 |
The correlation between CU31.L and CNYB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.82 (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
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L — Risk / Return Rank
CU31.L
CNYB.L
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU31.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.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.
| CU31.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.92 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.21 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.65 | 2.58 | -1.92 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.63 | 6.11 | -4.48 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CU31.L drawdown since its inception was -21.14%, smaller than the maximum CNYB.L drawdown of -25.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CU31.L and CNYB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CU31.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.14% | -25.82% | +4.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.51% | -2.75% | -1.76% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.14% | -9.03% | -12.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.14% | -15.44% | -5.70% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -21.14% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.72% | -7.24% | -9.48% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.21% | -12.52% | +4.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.81% | 1.16% | +0.65% |
Volatility
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU31.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) have volatilities of 1.27% and 1.24%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CU31.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.27% | 1.24% | +0.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.46% | 4.69% | -0.23% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.05% | 6.29% | -0.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.19% | 7.65% | +8.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.09% | 11.47% | +1.62% |
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CU31.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CNYB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CU31.L vs. CNYB.L - Dividend Comparison
CU31.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CNYB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%.
| 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% |
CU31.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CU31.L and CNYB.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CU31.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CU31.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNYB.L.
CU31.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CNYB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. CU31.L tracks ICE US Treasury 1-3 Year Index, while CNYB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for CU31.L and 0.35% for CNYB.L.
Find the right allocation for CU31.L and CNYB.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