EMB vs. BREM
EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF) and BREM (iShares Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. EMB is passively managed, while BREM is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMB charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BREM.
Performance
EMB vs. BREM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMB achieves a 1.80% return, which is significantly lower than BREM's 3.26% return.
EMB
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 1.29%
- YTD
- 1.80%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 11.56%
- 3Y*
- 9.74%
- 5Y*
- 1.86%
- 10Y*
- 3.29%
BREM
- 1D
- -0.21%
- 1M
- 1.16%
- YTD
- 3.26%
- 6M
- 3.89%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMB vs. BREM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 1.80% | 1.83% |
BREM iShares Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF | 3.26% | 2.74% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMB and BREM is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2025 | 0.83 |
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
EMB vs. BREM — Risk / Return Rank
EMB
BREM
EMB vs. BREM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB) and iShares Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF (BREM). 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.
| EMB | BREM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.58 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.01 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EMB | BREM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.09 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.33 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.44 | 1.75 | -1.32 |
Drawdowns
EMB vs. BREM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMB drawdown since its inception was -34.70%, which is greater than BREM's maximum drawdown of -4.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMB and BREM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMB | BREM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.70% | -4.54% | -30.16% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.51% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.95% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.74% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.74% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.37% | -0.21% | -0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.06% | -0.67% | -4.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.05% | — | — |
Volatility
EMB vs. BREM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMB | BREM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.85% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.52% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.56% | 5.70% | -0.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.75% | 5.70% | +4.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.96% | 5.70% | +4.26% |
EMB vs. BREM - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMB has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than BREM's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMB vs. BREM - Dividend Comparison
EMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.06%, more than BREM's 3.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BREM iShares Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF | 3.91% | 1.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 5.06% | 4.98% | 5.46% | 4.74% | 5.04% | 3.89% | 3.88% | 4.51% | 5.64% | 4.54% | 4.83% | 4.84% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMB and BREM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EMB is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMB is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for BREM.
EMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.06%, compared with 3.91% for BREM.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for EMB and 0.50% for BREM.
Find the right allocation for EMB and BREM
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