EMAG.L vs. CBND.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

EMAG.L (L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAG.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index, while CBND.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMAG.L returned 5.31%/yr vs 4.41%/yr for CBND.L. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAG.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for CBND.L.

Performance

EMAG.L vs. CBND.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.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.

Different Trading Currencies

EMAG.L is traded in GBp, while CBND.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CBND.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAG.L achieves a 0.97% return, which is significantly lower than CBND.L's 4.44% return.

EMAG.L

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: -0.63%
• 6M: 0.63%
• YTD: 0.97%
• 1Y: 4.81%
• 3Y*: 5.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CBND.L

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -0.86%
• 6M: 4.01%
• YTD: 4.44%
• 1Y: 6.30%
• 3Y*: 4.41%
• 5Y*: 3.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMAG.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.97%	0.75%	7.46%	0.98%	-0.82%	1.27%
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	4.44%	-2.44%	6.50%	-3.78%	6.10%	5.35%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAG.L and CBND.L is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2021	0.51

The correlation between EMAG.L and CBND.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

EMAG.L

EMAG.L Risk / Return Rank: 26
EMAG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
EMAG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
EMAG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 24
EMAG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
EMAG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.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.

	EMAG.L	CBND.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.80	0.98	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	1.43	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.18	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.14	1.84	-0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.81	5.14	-2.33

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

The current EMAG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.80, which is comparable to the CBND.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAG.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

EMAG.L vs. CBND.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAG.L drawdown since its inception was -11.32%, smaller than the maximum CBND.L drawdown of -16.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAG.L and CBND.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMAG.L	CBND.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.32%	-16.35%	+5.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.20%	-3.40%	-0.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.30%	-9.09%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.56%	-4.42%	+1.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.05%	-7.47%	+3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	1.22%	+0.49%

Volatility

EMAG.L vs. CBND.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) have volatilities of 1.96% and 1.90%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMAG.L	CBND.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.96%	1.90%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.36%	4.90%	-0.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.96%	6.39%	-0.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.85%	7.92%	-0.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.85%	8.34%	-0.49%

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

EMAG.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CBND.L's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAG.L vs. CBND.L - Dividend Comparison

EMAG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%.

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%
EMAG.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

EMAG.L and CBND.L have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

CBND.L is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EMAG.L.

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

EMAG.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while CBND.L is Government Bonds. EMAG.L tracks J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index, while CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: L&G and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EMAG.L and 0.24% for CBND.L.