EMES.L vs. ICBU.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EMES.L (iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF) and ICBU.L (iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMES.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD, while ICBU.L is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMES.L returned 1.35%/yr vs 1.73%/yr for ICBU.L. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMES.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for ICBU.L.

Performance

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) and iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF (ICBU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMES.L achieves a 1.50% return, which is significantly higher than ICBU.L's 0.45% 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*: —

ICBU.L

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 0.45%
• 6M: 0.86%
• 1Y: 4.93%
• 3Y*: 5.47%
• 5Y*: 1.73%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMES.L iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF	1.50%	13.10%	5.45%	9.57%	-18.82%	-2.59%	5.41%	15.66%	-0.48%
ICBU.L iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF	0.45%	7.60%	4.08%	6.74%	-9.04%	-1.35%	6.50%	9.92%	0.50%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES.L and ICBU.L is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018	0.57

The correlation between EMES.L and ICBU.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (all time) to 0.67 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMES.L

EMES.L Risk / Return Rank: 59
EMES.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
EMES.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
EMES.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EMES.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
EMES.L Martin Ratio Rank: 57

ICBU.L

ICBU.L Risk / Return Rank: 49
ICBU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
ICBU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
ICBU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 51
ICBU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
ICBU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

EMES.L vs. ICBU.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 iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF (ICBU.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	ICBU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	1.62	+0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	2.40	+0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.31	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	2.29	+0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.84	8.55	+1.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the ICBU.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES.L and ICBU.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMES.L	ICBU.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.95	1.62	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16	0.40	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.61	-0.26

Drawdowns

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES.L drawdown since its inception was -28.84%, which is greater than ICBU.L's maximum drawdown of -13.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES.L and ICBU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMES.L	ICBU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.84%	-13.92%	-14.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.48%	-2.14%	-2.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.22%	-3.24%	-3.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.84%	-13.92%	-14.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.35%	-0.67%	+0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.85%	-2.78%	-5.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.08%	0.57%	+0.51%

Volatility

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) has a higher volatility of 2.26% compared to iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF (ICBU.L) at 1.35%. This indicates that EMES.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICBU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMES.L	ICBU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.26%	1.35%	+0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.55%	2.46%	+2.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.47%	3.03%	+2.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.28%	4.31%	+3.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.24%	4.42%	+4.82%

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than ICBU.L's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMES.L vs. ICBU.L - Dividend Comparison

EMES.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.78%, more than ICBU.L's 5.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%	0.00%
ICBU.L iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF	5.54%	4.21%	3.78%	2.77%	1.93%	1.93%	2.78%	2.93%	2.65%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMES.L and ICBU.L in my portfolio?

EMES.L and ICBU.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMES.L or ICBU.L?

On fees, ICBU.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMES.L or ICBU.L?

ICBU.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for EMES.L.

What is the main difference between EMES.L and ICBU.L?

EMES.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while ICBU.L is Corporate Bonds. EMES.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD, while ICBU.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for EMES.L and 0.15% for ICBU.L.