PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in L&G Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMD5.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMD5.L is traded in USD, while CYGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the CYGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMD5.L achieves a -0.96% return, which is significantly lower than CYGB.L's 4.04% return.


EMD5.L

1D
0.11%
1M
-0.00%
6M
-0.75%
YTD
-0.96%
1Y
3.64%
3Y*
7.13%
5Y*
2.39%
10Y*

CYGB.L

1D
0.00%
1M
1.54%
6M
3.81%
YTD
4.04%
1Y
4.68%
3Y*
7.94%
5Y*
5.08%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EMD5.L
L&G Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
-0.96%10.15%8.41%7.84%-10.41%-0.38%
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
4.04%9.91%9.53%12.79%-8.81%-1.56%

Correlation

The correlation between EMD5.L and CYGB.L is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.27

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.33

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021

0.32

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

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EMD5.L
EMD5.L Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
EMD5.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMD5.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMD5.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
EMD5.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMD5.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
Martin Ratio Rank

CYGB.L
CYGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMD5.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.


EMD5.LCYGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.32

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.11

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.10

1.08

+0.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.76

2.45

+0.31

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMD5.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.91, which is higher than the CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMD5.L and CYGB.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMD5.L drawdown since its inception was -16.04%, smaller than the maximum CYGB.L drawdown of -22.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMD5.L and CYGB.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMD5.LCYGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.04%

-22.10%

+6.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.29%

-4.04%

+0.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.29%

-6.72%

+3.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.04%

-21.63%

+5.59%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.06%

0.00%

-1.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.32%

-4.36%

+0.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.31%

1.78%

-0.47%

Volatility

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMD5.L) is 0.95%, while iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) has a volatility of 1.98%. This indicates that EMD5.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CYGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMD5.LCYGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.95%

1.98%

-1.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.51%

5.70%

-2.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.97%

7.38%

-3.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

4.85%

8.87%

-4.02%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.62%

8.74%

-4.12%

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMD5.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CYGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMD5.L vs. CYGB.L - Dividend Comparison

EMD5.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.87%, more than CYGB.L's 1.70% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
1.70%1.84%2.13%2.38%2.68%2.21%
EMD5.L
L&G Emerging Markets Government Bond (USD) 0-5 Year Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
2.87%5.66%6.09%4.60%3.04%1.25%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMD5.L and CYGB.L have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EMD5.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EMD5.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CYGB.L.

EMD5.L tracks J.P. Morgan ESG EMBI Global Diversified Short-Term Custom Maturity Index, while CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. They also come from different issuers: L&G and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EMD5.L and 0.40% for CYGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMD5.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