EMES.L vs. DRGN.L
EMES.L (iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF) and DRGN.L (L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. EMES.L is passively managed, while DRGN.L is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMES.L returned 1.35%/yr vs 2.26%/yr for DRGN.L. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMES.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for DRGN.L.
Performance
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMES.L achieves a 1.50% return, which is significantly lower than DRGN.L's 4.62% return.
EMES.L
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 1.02%
- YTD
- 1.50%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 10.68%
- 3Y*
- 9.03%
- 5Y*
- 1.35%
- 10Y*
- —
DRGN.L
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 1.37%
- YTD
- 4.62%
- 6M
- 6.29%
- 1Y
- 8.23%
- 3Y*
- 4.99%
- 5Y*
- 2.26%
- 10Y*
- —
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMES.L iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF | 1.50% | 13.10% | 5.45% | 9.57% | -18.82% | -2.59% | 1.63% |
DRGN.L L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF | 4.62% | 5.43% | 3.15% | 0.46% | -5.32% | 7.15% | 0.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMES.L and DRGN.L is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.39 |
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 Dec 10, 2020 | 0.33 |
The correlation between EMES.L and DRGN.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (3 years) to 0.39 (1 year), 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
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMES.L
DRGN.L
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) and L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.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.
| EMES.L | DRGN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.50 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.50 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.56 | -0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.38 | 5.58 | -3.20 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.84 | 22.51 | -12.67 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EMES.L | DRGN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.95 | 2.45 | -0.50 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 | 0.49 | -0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.35 | 0.64 | -0.29 |
Drawdowns
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMES.L drawdown since its inception was -28.84%, which is greater than DRGN.L's maximum drawdown of -11.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES.L and DRGN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMES.L | DRGN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.84% | -11.71% | -17.13% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.48% | -1.47% | -3.01% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.22% | -3.49% | -3.73% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.84% | -11.71% | -17.13% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.35% | -0.30% | -0.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.85% | -3.61% | -4.24% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.08% | 0.36% | +0.72% |
Volatility
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) has a higher volatility of 2.26% compared to L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.L) at 1.21%. This indicates that EMES.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DRGN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMES.L | DRGN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.26% | 1.21% | +1.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.55% | 3.00% | +1.55% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.47% | 3.36% | +2.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.28% | 4.58% | +3.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.24% | 4.53% | +4.71% |
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMES.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than DRGN.L's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMES.L vs. DRGN.L - Dividend Comparison
EMES.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.78%, more than DRGN.L's 1.63% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DRGN.L L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF | 1.63% | 1.94% | 2.31% | 2.45% | 2.76% | 1.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EMES.L iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF | 5.78% | 5.78% | 5.45% | 5.41% | 5.03% | 3.48% | 3.49% | 4.60% | 0.50% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMES.L and DRGN.L have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, DRGN.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
DRGN.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for EMES.L.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for EMES.L and 0.30% for DRGN.L.
Find the right allocation for EMES.L and DRGN.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