EMGB.L vs. DAGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EMGB.L (VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF) and DAGB.L (VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - EMGB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD, while DAGB.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMGB.L returned 2.27%/yr vs -1.09%/yr for DAGB.L. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMGB.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for DAGB.L.

Performance

EMGB.L vs. DAGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L) and VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMGB.L achieves a 1.24% return, which is significantly lower than DAGB.L's 29.14% return.

EMGB.L

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.86%
• YTD: 1.24%
• 6M: 1.38%
• 1Y: 10.23%
• 3Y*: 4.11%
• 5Y*: 2.27%
• 10Y*: —

DAGB.L

• 1D: -3.10%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 29.14%
• 6M: 12.28%
• 1Y: 47.75%
• 3Y*: 52.74%
• 5Y*: -1.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMGB.L VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF	1.24%	10.22%	-0.96%	4.28%	0.69%	-3.36%
DAGB.L VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc	29.14%	2.77%	31.18%	325.83%	-85.21%	-24.14%

Correlation

The correlation between EMGB.L and DAGB.L is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2021	0.07

Return for Risk

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

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

EMGB.L

EMGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 54
EMGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
EMGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
EMGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
EMGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
EMGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 40

DAGB.L

DAGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 25
DAGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
DAGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
DAGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 26
DAGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
DAGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L) and VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.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.

	EMGB.L	DAGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.96	0.89	+1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	1.47	+1.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.17	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.16	1.13	+1.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.23	2.03	+4.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current EMGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.96, which is higher than the DAGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMGB.L and DAGB.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

	EMGB.L	DAGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.96	0.89	+1.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33	-0.02	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.06	-0.05	+0.11

Drawdowns

EMGB.L vs. DAGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMGB.L drawdown since its inception was -20.56%, smaller than the maximum DAGB.L drawdown of -91.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMGB.L and DAGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMGB.L	DAGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.56%	-91.23%	+70.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.68%	-45.63%	+40.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.68%	-58.45%	+53.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.57%	-91.23%	+81.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.87%	-33.56%	+30.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.65%	-57.60%	+46.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.63%	25.31%	-23.68%

Volatility

EMGB.L vs. DAGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L) is 1.63%, while VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) has a volatility of 16.79%. This indicates that EMGB.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DAGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMGB.L	DAGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.63%	16.79%	-15.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.10%	40.07%	-35.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.17%	57.84%	-52.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.87%	71.95%	-65.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.33%	71.78%	-63.45%

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

EMGB.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than DAGB.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMGB.L vs. DAGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMGB.L nor DAGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMGB.L and DAGB.L in my portfolio?

EMGB.L and DAGB.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.

Which ETF is better, EMGB.L or DAGB.L?

On fees, EMGB.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMGB.L or DAGB.L?

EMGB.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for DAGB.L.

What is the main difference between EMGB.L and DAGB.L?

EMGB.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while DAGB.L is Technology Equities. EMGB.L tracks JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD, while DAGB.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for EMGB.L and 0.65% for DAGB.L.