EMB vs. NEMD
EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF) and NEMD (Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. EMB is passively managed, while NEMD is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMB charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for NEMD.
Performance
EMB vs. NEMD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMB achieves a 1.80% return, which is significantly lower than NEMD's 3.76% 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%
NEMD
- 1D
- -0.39%
- 1M
- 1.56%
- YTD
- 3.76%
- 6M
- 4.02%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMB vs. NEMD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 1.80% | 5.11% |
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF | 3.76% | 7.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMB and NEMD is 0.91, 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 Aug 12, 2025 | 0.91 |
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. NEMD — Risk / Return Rank
EMB
NEMD
EMB vs. NEMD - 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 Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD). 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 | NEMD | 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 | NEMD | 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 | 2.14 | -1.70 |
Drawdowns
EMB vs. NEMD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMB drawdown since its inception was -34.70%, which is greater than NEMD's maximum drawdown of -4.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMB and NEMD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMB | NEMD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.70% | -4.43% | -30.27% |
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% | -0.39% | +0.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.06% | -0.57% | -4.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.05% | — | — |
Volatility
EMB vs. NEMD - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMB | NEMD | 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% | 6.51% | -0.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.75% | 6.51% | +3.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.96% | 6.51% | +3.45% |
EMB vs. NEMD - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMB has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than NEMD's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMB vs. NEMD - Dividend Comparison
EMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.06%, more than NEMD's 4.73% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF | 4.73% | 2.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, EMB and NEMD move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
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 0.60% for NEMD.
EMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.06%, compared with 4.73% for NEMD.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Neuberger Berman. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for EMB and 0.60% for NEMD.
Find the right allocation for EMB and NEMD
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