EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L
EMCA.L (iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and HLQD.L (iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMCA.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index, while HLQD.L is a Global Bonds fund tracking the iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMCA.L returned 1.91%/yr vs 5.42%/yr for HLQD.L. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMCA.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for HLQD.L.
Performance
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMCA.L achieves a 1.55% return, which is significantly lower than HLQD.L's 2.31% return.
EMCA.L
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.38%
- 6M
- 1.25%
- YTD
- 1.55%
- 1Y
- 5.99%
- 3Y*
- 6.97%
- 5Y*
- 1.91%
- 10Y*
- —
HLQD.L
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- -0.07%
- 6M
- 2.17%
- YTD
- 2.31%
- 1Y
- 5.11%
- 3Y*
- 7.50%
- 5Y*
- 5.42%
- 10Y*
- —
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMCA.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 1.55% | 8.60% | 6.21% | 7.96% | -12.09% | -0.51% | 7.04% | 13.77% | 1.26% |
HLQD.L iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF | 2.31% | 5.47% | 8.15% | 11.14% | 0.41% | 1.25% | 0.54% | 10.77% | -0.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMCA.L and HLQD.L is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018 | 0.21 |
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
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMCA.L
HLQD.L
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMCA.L) and iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF (HLQD.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.
| EMCA.L | HLQD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.04 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.28 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.63 | 3.55 | -0.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.19 | 11.38 | -1.20 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -24.69%, which is greater than HLQD.L's maximum drawdown of -21.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMCA.L and HLQD.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMCA.L | HLQD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.69% | -21.96% | -2.73% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.21% | -1.39% | -0.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.58% | -3.08% | -0.50% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.14% | -6.39% | -13.75% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.53% | -0.34% | -0.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.05% | -1.33% | -2.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.57% | 0.43% | +0.14% |
Volatility
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMCA.L) has a higher volatility of 1.06% compared to iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF (HLQD.L) at 0.83%. This indicates that EMCA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HLQD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMCA.L | HLQD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.06% | 0.83% | +0.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.26% | 2.35% | +0.91% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.82% | 3.30% | +0.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.25% | 4.36% | +0.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.79% | 6.09% | +2.70% |
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMCA.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than HLQD.L's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMCA.L vs. HLQD.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMCA.L nor HLQD.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EMCA.L and HLQD.L have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, HLQD.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HLQD.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMCA.L.
EMCA.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while HLQD.L is Global Bonds. EMCA.L tracks J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index, while HLQD.L tracks iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EMCA.L and 0.25% for HLQD.L.
Find the right allocation for EMCA.L and HLQD.L
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