EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L
EMCP.L (iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and CNYB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds from iShares - EMCP.L tracks the J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index while CNYB.L tracks the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMCP.L returned 2.35%/yr vs 3.58%/yr for CNYB.L. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMCP.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNYB.L.
Performance
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMCP.L achieves a 1.24% return, which is significantly lower than CNYB.L's 5.08% return.
EMCP.L
- 1D
- -0.70%
- 1M
- -0.72%
- 6M
- 0.87%
- YTD
- 1.24%
- 1Y
- 5.17%
- 3Y*
- 5.87%
- 5Y*
- 2.35%
- 10Y*
- 3.28%
CNYB.L
- 1D
- 0.23%
- 1M
- -0.13%
- 6M
- 4.82%
- YTD
- 5.08%
- 1Y
- 7.11%
- 3Y*
- 4.85%
- 5Y*
- 3.58%
- 10Y*
- —
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMCP.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.24% | 0.95% | 8.19% | 1.91% | -1.50% | 0.62% | 3.41% | -2.21% |
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 5.08% | -2.20% | 6.65% | -4.09% | 6.21% | 9.69% | -19.80% | 0.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMCP.L and CNYB.L is 0.79, 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 | 0.79 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.69 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2019 | 0.59 |
Over the past year, EMCP.L and CNYB.L have become more correlated (0.79) than their long-term average of 0.59, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMCP.L
CNYB.L
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.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 (Dist) (EMCP.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.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.
| EMCP.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.21 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.24 | 2.57 | -1.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.20 | 6.13 | -2.93 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMCP.L drawdown since its inception was -37.54%, which is greater than CNYB.L's maximum drawdown of -25.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMCP.L and CNYB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMCP.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.54% | -25.82% | -11.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.15% | -2.75% | -1.40% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.40% | -9.03% | +0.63% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.10% | -15.44% | +4.34% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -15.92% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.81% | -7.25% | +4.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.49% | -12.53% | +1.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.61% | 1.16% | +0.45% |
Volatility
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMCP.L) has a higher volatility of 1.97% compared to iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) at 1.68%. This indicates that EMCP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNYB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMCP.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.97% | 1.68% | +0.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.23% | 4.69% | -0.46% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.82% | 6.29% | -0.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.76% | 7.66% | +0.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.35% | 11.48% | -2.13% |
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMCP.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMCP.L vs. CNYB.L - Dividend Comparison
EMCP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.65%, more than CNYB.L's 1.72% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.72% | 1.89% | 2.24% | 2.55% | 2.72% | 2.74% | 2.65% | 0.72% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EMCP.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 5.65% | 5.54% | 5.36% | 5.03% | 4.20% | 3.59% | 4.16% | 4.69% | 4.63% | 4.49% | 4.31% | 5.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMCP.L and CNYB.L have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CNYB.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CNYB.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMCP.L.
EMCP.L tracks J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index, while CNYB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EMCP.L and 0.35% for CNYB.L.
Find the right allocation for EMCP.L and CNYB.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