EMCP.L vs. CYGB.L
EMCP.L (iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and CYGB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds from iShares - EMCP.L tracks the J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index while CYGB.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 5.44%/yr for CYGB.L. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMCP.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CYGB.L.
Performance
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.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 CYGB.L's 3.55% 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%
CYGB.L
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- 0.74%
- 6M
- 3.19%
- YTD
- 3.55%
- 1Y
- 3.60%
- 3Y*
- 6.74%
- 5Y*
- 5.44%
- 10Y*
- —
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMCP.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.24% | 0.95% | 8.19% | 1.91% | -1.50% | 4.51% |
CYGB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 3.55% | 2.20% | 11.38% | 7.14% | 2.11% | 2.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMCP.L and CYGB.L is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.13 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.02 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021 | 0.00 |
The correlation between EMCP.L and CYGB.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.01 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. CYGB.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMCP.L
CYGB.L
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.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 GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.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 | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.44 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.62 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.28 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.24 | 5.18 | -3.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.20 | 11.91 | -8.72 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMCP.L drawdown since its inception was -37.54%, which is greater than CYGB.L's maximum drawdown of -1.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMCP.L and CYGB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMCP.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.54% | -1.56% | -35.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.15% | -0.69% | -3.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.40% | -1.56% | -6.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.10% | -1.56% | -9.54% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -15.92% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.81% | 0.00% | -2.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.49% | -0.24% | -11.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.61% | 0.30% | +1.31% |
Volatility
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.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 GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) at 0.59%. This indicates that EMCP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CYGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMCP.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.97% | 0.59% | +1.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.23% | 2.22% | +2.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.82% | 2.71% | +3.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.76% | 2.37% | +5.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.35% | 2.33% | +7.02% |
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMCP.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CYGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMCP.L vs. CYGB.L - Dividend Comparison
EMCP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.65%, more than CYGB.L's 1.70% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CYGB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 1.70% | 1.84% | 2.13% | 2.38% | 2.68% | 2.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 CYGB.L have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CYGB.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CYGB.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMCP.L.
EMCP.L tracks J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index, while CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EMCP.L and 0.40% for CYGB.L.
Find the right allocation for EMCP.L and CYGB.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