PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) and iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LQDH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CYGB.L is traded in GBP, while LQDH.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the LQDH.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CYGB.L achieves a 3.55% return, which is significantly higher than LQDH.L's 2.08% return.


CYGB.L

1D
0.10%
1M
0.74%
6M
3.19%
YTD
3.55%
1Y
3.60%
3Y*
6.74%
5Y*
5.44%
10Y*

LQDH.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-1.03%
6M
1.27%
YTD
2.08%
1Y
3.85%
3Y*
6.24%
5Y*
5.74%
10Y*
4.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
3.55%2.20%11.38%7.14%2.11%2.84%
LQDH.L
iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
2.08%-2.55%10.16%5.96%12.21%5.42%

Correlation

The correlation between CYGB.L and LQDH.L is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


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

-0.11

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

-0.03

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

-0.03

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021

-0.03

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

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CYGB.L
CYGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

LQDH.L
LQDH.L Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
LQDH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LQDH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
LQDH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
LQDH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
LQDH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) and iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LQDH.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.


CYGB.LLQDH.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.10

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.18

0.97

+4.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.91

2.61

+9.31

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is higher than the LQDH.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CYGB.L and LQDH.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

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CYGB.L drawdown since its inception was -1.56%, smaller than the maximum LQDH.L drawdown of -17.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CYGB.L and LQDH.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CYGB.LLQDH.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-1.56%

-17.83%

+16.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.69%

-4.07%

+3.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-1.56%

-9.62%

+8.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-1.56%

-10.90%

+9.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-17.83%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-3.01%

+3.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.24%

-4.31%

+4.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.30%

1.52%

-1.22%

Volatility

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) is 0.59%, while iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LQDH.L) has a volatility of 1.74%. This indicates that CYGB.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LQDH.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CYGB.LLQDH.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.59%

1.74%

-1.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.22%

5.35%

-3.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.71%

6.99%

-4.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.37%

8.95%

-6.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.33%

9.87%

-7.54%

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CYGB.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than LQDH.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

CYGB.L vs. LQDH.L - Dividend Comparison

CYGB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than LQDH.L's 4.34% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
1.70%1.84%2.13%2.38%2.68%2.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
LQDH.L
iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
4.34%4.66%5.52%4.83%2.07%1.55%2.45%3.52%2.87%2.14%2.46%3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions


CYGB.L and LQDH.L have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, LQDH.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LQDH.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CYGB.L.

CYGB.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while LQDH.L is Global Bonds. CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index, while LQDH.L tracks iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF USD (Dist). Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CYGB.L and 0.25% for LQDH.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CYGB.L and LQDH.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