EBND vs. CMF
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF).
EBND and CMF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EBND is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg Emerging Market Local Currency Government Diversified. It was launched on Feb 23, 2011. CMF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index. It was launched on Oct 4, 2007. Both EBND and CMF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: EBND or CMF.
Key characteristics
| EBND | CMF | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -1.94% | 1.31% |
| 1Y Return | 5.00% | 6.29% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -2.32% | -0.49% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -1.70% | 0.80% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | -0.58% | 1.97% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.61 | 1.69 |
| Sortino Ratio | 0.96 | 2.42 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.11 | 1.33 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.25 | 0.81 |
| Martin Ratio | 1.67 | 7.36 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.88% | 0.88% |
| Daily Std Dev | 7.89% | 3.84% |
| Max Drawdown | -29.50% | -16.45% |
| Current Drawdown | -15.18% | -2.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between EBND and CMF is 0.16, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
EBND vs. CMF - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, EBND achieves a -1.94% return, which is significantly lower than CMF's 1.31% return. Over the past 10 years, EBND has underperformed CMF with an annualized return of -0.58%, while CMF has yielded a comparatively higher 1.97% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
EBND vs. CMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
EBND has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than CMF's 0.25% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
EBND vs. CMF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF). 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.
Dividends
EBND vs. CMF - Dividend Comparison
EBND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.85%, more than CMF's 2.74% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EBND SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF | 5.85% | 5.27% | 4.74% | 3.83% | 3.67% | 4.68% | 4.70% | 2.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.24% | 2.31% |
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 2.74% | 2.28% | 1.74% | 1.58% | 1.80% | 2.03% | 2.17% | 2.09% | 2.21% | 2.55% | 2.80% | 3.11% |
Drawdowns
EBND vs. CMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EBND drawdown since its inception was -29.50%, which is greater than CMF's maximum drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EBND and CMF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
EBND vs. CMF - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) has a higher volatility of 3.03% compared to iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) at 2.05%. This indicates that EBND's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.