DRGN.L vs. CBND.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

DRGN.L (L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF) and CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - DRGN.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by Legal & General, while CBND.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. DRGN.L is actively managed, while CBND.L is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DRGN.L returned 2.01%/yr vs 2.85%/yr for CBND.L. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DRGN.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for CBND.L.

Performance

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DRGN.L achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly lower than CBND.L's 4.87% return.

DRGN.L

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: -0.67%
• 6M: 2.98%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 1Y: 6.54%
• 3Y*: 4.53%
• 5Y*: 2.01%
• 10Y*: —

CBND.L

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.02%
• 6M: 4.64%
• YTD: 4.87%
• 1Y: 7.44%
• 3Y*: 5.57%
• 5Y*: 2.85%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
DRGN.L L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF	3.18%	5.48%	3.14%	0.48%	-5.41%	7.20%	1.10%
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	4.87%	5.04%	4.67%	1.28%	-5.17%	7.61%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between DRGN.L and CBND.L is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2020	0.87

The correlation between DRGN.L and CBND.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (1 year) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

DRGN.L

DRGN.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
DRGN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
DRGN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
DRGN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 84
DRGN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
DRGN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 88

CBND.L

CBND.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.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.

	DRGN.L	CBND.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	2.39	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.54	3.57	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.47	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.37	7.45	-3.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.98	18.48	-3.50

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DRGN.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the CBND.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DRGN.L and CBND.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.

Drawdowns

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DRGN.L drawdown since its inception was -11.78%, roughly equal to the maximum CBND.L drawdown of -11.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DRGN.L and CBND.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	DRGN.L	CBND.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.78%	-11.48%	-0.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.46%	-0.99%	-0.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.47%	-3.66%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.78%	-11.48%	-0.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.86%	-0.21%	-0.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.57%	-2.80%	-0.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.43%	0.40%	+0.03%

Volatility

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.L) is 0.79%, while Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) has a volatility of 0.89%. This indicates that DRGN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CBND.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DRGN.L	CBND.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.79%	0.89%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.11%	2.58%	+0.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.50%	3.11%	+0.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.65%	5.02%	-0.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.58%	4.94%	-0.36%

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

DRGN.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than CBND.L's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

DRGN.L vs. CBND.L - Dividend Comparison

DRGN.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than CBND.L's 2.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.04%	2.20%	2.45%	2.54%	2.72%	2.52%	1.87%
DRGN.L L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF	0.87%	1.94%	2.31%	2.45%	2.77%	1.43%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DRGN.L and CBND.L in my portfolio?

DRGN.L and CBND.L have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DRGN.L or CBND.L?

On fees, CBND.L is cheaper at 0.24% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, DRGN.L or CBND.L?

CBND.L is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for DRGN.L.

What is the main difference between DRGN.L and CBND.L?

DRGN.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while CBND.L is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for DRGN.L and 0.24% for CBND.L.