PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares USD Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU71.L) and HSBC FTSE EPRA NAREIT Developed UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (H4Z7.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CU71.L is traded in GBp, while H4Z7.DE is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the H4Z7.DE values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CU71.L achieves a 1.85% return, which is significantly lower than H4Z7.DE's 11.98% return.


CU71.L

1D
-0.17%
1M
2.33%
YTD
1.85%
6M
2.57%
1Y
6.11%
3Y*
2.62%
5Y*
1.58%
10Y*
1.28%

H4Z7.DE

1D
0.00%
1M
2.16%
YTD
11.98%
6M
13.01%
1Y
17.61%
3Y*
9.69%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
CU71.L
iShares USD Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF (Acc)
1.85%-0.08%3.77%-1.43%-19.91%
H4Z7.DE
HSBC FTSE EPRA NAREIT Developed UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
11.98%3.33%1.19%5.25%-9.18%

Correlation

The correlation between CU71.L and H4Z7.DE is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.14

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

0.17

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2022

0.13

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

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CU71.L
CU71.L Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
CU71.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CU71.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
CU71.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
CU71.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
CU71.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank

H4Z7.DE
H4Z7.DE Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
H4Z7.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
H4Z7.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
H4Z7.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
H4Z7.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 4747
Calmar Ratio Rank
H4Z7.DE 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.

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU71.L) and HSBC FTSE EPRA NAREIT Developed UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (H4Z7.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.


CU71.LH4Z7.DEDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.27

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.21

2.02

-0.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.91

7.02

-4.10

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CU71.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is lower than the H4Z7.DE Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CU71.L and H4Z7.DE, 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

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CU71.L drawdown since its inception was -25.85%, which is greater than H4Z7.DE's maximum drawdown of -24.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CU71.L and H4Z7.DE.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CU71.LH4Z7.DEDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.85%

-24.07%

-1.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.02%

-8.75%

+3.73%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.81%

-18.17%

-2.64%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.85%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-17.36%

0.00%

-17.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.46%

-9.84%

+0.38%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.09%

2.52%

-0.43%

Volatility

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares USD Treasury Bond 3-7yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU71.L) is 1.53%, while HSBC FTSE EPRA NAREIT Developed UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (H4Z7.DE) has a volatility of 3.48%. This indicates that CU71.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than H4Z7.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CU71.LH4Z7.DEDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.53%

3.48%

-1.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.35%

9.27%

-4.92%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.99%

11.50%

-5.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.92%

14.22%

+5.70%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.62%

14.22%

+1.40%

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

CU71.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than H4Z7.DE's 0.24% 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

CU71.L vs. H4Z7.DE - Dividend Comparison

Neither CU71.L nor H4Z7.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CU71.L and H4Z7.DE have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CU71.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CU71.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for H4Z7.DE.

CU71.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while H4Z7.DE is REIT. CU71.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 3-7 Year Bond Index, while H4Z7.DE tracks FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed. They also come from different issuers: iShares and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for CU71.L and 0.24% for H4Z7.DE.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CU71.L and H4Z7.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