EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

EMA5.DE (L&G ESG Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year UCITS ETF) and CGB.DE (Xtrackers II Harvest China Government Bond UCITS ETF (Dist)) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - EMA5.DE tracks the J.P. Morgan ESG EMBI Global Diversified Short-Term Custom Maturity while CGB.DE tracks the FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond 1-10 Years Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMA5.DE returned 3.31%/yr vs 3.10%/yr for CGB.DE. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMA5.DE charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CGB.DE.

Performance

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in L&G ESG Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year UCITS ETF (EMA5.DE) and Xtrackers II Harvest China Government Bond UCITS ETF (Dist) (CGB.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMA5.DE achieves a 3.09% return, which is significantly lower than CGB.DE's 8.22% return.

EMA5.DE

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -0.09%
• 6M: 1.55%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 1Y: 6.28%
• 3Y*: 6.86%
• 5Y*: 3.31%
• 10Y*: —

CGB.DE

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 1.36%
• 6M: 6.23%
• YTD: 8.22%
• 1Y: 9.90%
• 3Y*: 4.82%
• 5Y*: 3.10%
• 10Y*: 2.41%

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

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EMA5.DE L&G ESG Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year UCITS ETF	3.09%	-2.08%	14.60%	4.24%	-4.92%	8.07%	-0.83%
CGB.DE Xtrackers II Harvest China Government Bond UCITS ETF (Dist)	8.22%	-6.58%	9.93%	-2.82%	-0.10%	15.85%	-1.32%

Correlation

The correlation between EMA5.DE and CGB.DE is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2020	0.62

The correlation between EMA5.DE and CGB.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMA5.DE

EMA5.DE Risk / Return Rank: 40
EMA5.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
EMA5.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
EMA5.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 32
EMA5.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
EMA5.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 46

CGB.DE

CGB.DE Risk / Return Rank: 75
CGB.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
CGB.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
CGB.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 66
CGB.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CGB.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G ESG Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year UCITS ETF (EMA5.DE) and Xtrackers II Harvest China Government Bond UCITS ETF (Dist) (CGB.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.

	EMA5.DE	CGB.DE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	1.73	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	2.56	-1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.30	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	3.48	-1.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.73	10.44	-4.70

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMA5.DE Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is lower than the CGB.DE Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMA5.DE and CGB.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.

Drawdowns

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMA5.DE drawdown since its inception was -10.01%, smaller than the maximum CGB.DE drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMA5.DE and CGB.DE.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMA5.DE	CGB.DE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.01%	-20.06%	+10.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.87%	-2.83%	-0.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.01%	-11.08%	+1.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.01%	-13.94%	+3.93%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.45%	-0.74%	-1.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.33%	-9.25%	+5.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.10%	0.94%	+0.16%

Volatility

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Volatility Comparison

L&G ESG Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year UCITS ETF (EMA5.DE) has a higher volatility of 2.97% compared to Xtrackers II Harvest China Government Bond UCITS ETF (Dist) (CGB.DE) at 1.51%. This indicates that EMA5.DE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGB.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMA5.DE	CGB.DE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.97%	1.51%	+1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.43%	3.98%	+1.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.74%	5.75%	+0.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.21%	6.73%	+0.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.05%	11.06%	-4.01%

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMA5.DE has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than CGB.DE's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EMA5.DE vs. CGB.DE - Dividend Comparison

EMA5.DE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, more than CGB.DE's 1.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CGB.DE Xtrackers II Harvest China Government Bond UCITS ETF (Dist)	1.99%	2.40%	2.37%	2.97%	4.40%	2.17%	2.15%	2.56%	0.72%	2.64%	0.38%
EMA5.DE L&G ESG Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year UCITS ETF	2.44%	6.10%	5.86%	4.63%	3.06%	1.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMA5.DE and CGB.DE in my portfolio?

EMA5.DE and CGB.DE have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMA5.DE or CGB.DE?

On fees, CGB.DE is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMA5.DE or CGB.DE?

CGB.DE is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for EMA5.DE.

What is the main difference between EMA5.DE and CGB.DE?

EMA5.DE tracks J.P. Morgan ESG EMBI Global Diversified Short-Term Custom Maturity, while CGB.DE tracks FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond 1-10 Years Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EMA5.DE and 0.20% for CGB.DE.