PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L).

EMDL.L and EMGB.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EMDL.L is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. It was launched on May 13, 2011. EMGB.L is a passively managed fund by VanEck that tracks the performance of the JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. It was launched on Apr 7, 2017. Both EMDL.L and EMGB.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMDL.L
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF		-0.72%7.85%-169.14%3.50%0.26%-7.31%0.02%8.55%-0.27%-2.69%
EMGB.L
VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF		-0.01%10.22%-0.96%4.28%0.69%-8.70%-0.78%6.10%-3.13%-3.39%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMDL.L achieves a -0.72% return, which is significantly lower than EMGB.L's -0.01% return.

EMDL.L

1D
0.72%
1M
-3.05%
YTD
-0.72%
6M
1.18%
1Y
6.46%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

EMGB.L

1D
0.31%
1M
-2.61%
YTD
-0.01%
6M
3.21%
1Y
9.14%
3Y*
3.76%
5Y*
2.58%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF

VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF

Often compared with EMDL.L:
EMDL.L vs. SBEM.LEMDL.L vs. SPYEMDL.L vs. EMLO.LEMDL.L vs. SEMC.LEMDL.L vs. EMLI.LEMDL.L vs. DRGN.LEMDL.L vs. VEMA.L
Often compared with EMGB.L:
EMGB.L vs. TDIV.ASEMGB.L vs. EMLI.LEMGB.L vs. EMLO.LEMGB.L vs. ERNS.LEMGB.L vs. SBEM.LEMGB.L vs. VEMA.LEMGB.L vs. EMBE.L

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMDL.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than EMGB.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

EMDL.L
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF
EMGB.L
VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF

Return for Risk

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EMDL.L
EMDL.L Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
EMDL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
EMGB.L
EMGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
EMGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
EMGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
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.

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.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.

EMDL.LEMGB.LDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.24

1.78

-0.54

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.83

2.61

-0.78

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.33

-0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.32

2.01

-0.70

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

5.27

7.78

-2.51

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMDL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the EMGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMDL.L and EMGB.L, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

EMDL.LEMGB.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.24

1.78

-0.54

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.37

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

—

0.04

—

Correlation

The correlation between EMDL.L and EMGB.L is 0.88, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Dividend Comparison

EMDL.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.09%, while EMGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMDL.L
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF		5.09%4.87%251.85%4.23%4.03%4.01%3.97%4.56%4.06%4.92%4.02%5.26%
EMGB.L
VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Drawdowns

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMDL.L drawdown since its inception was -162.74%, which is greater than EMGB.L's maximum drawdown of -20.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMDL.L and EMGB.L.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

EMDL.LEMGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-162.74%

-20.56%

-142.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.91%

-4.68%

-0.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-176.16%

-9.57%

-166.59%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-170.15%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-122.82%

-4.07%

-118.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-80.35%

-10.79%

-69.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.22%

1.21%

+0.01%

Volatility

EMDL.L vs. EMGB.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) has a higher volatility of 2.57% compared to VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L) at 2.38%. This indicates that EMDL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

EMDL.LEMGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.57%

2.38%

+0.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.14%

3.95%

+0.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.19%

5.11%

+0.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

75.75%

6.93%

+68.82%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

54.05%

8.38%

+45.67%