PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMHC vs. BEMB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMHC vs. BEMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) and Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMHC achieves a 1.57% return, which is significantly higher than BEMB's 1.27% return.


EMHC

1D
-0.32%
1M
1.13%
YTD
1.57%
6M
1.74%
1Y
11.54%
3Y*
8.74%
5Y*
1.55%
10Y*

BEMB

1D
-0.34%
1M
0.94%
YTD
1.27%
6M
1.64%
1Y
9.77%
3Y*
8.80%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMHC vs. BEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
1.57%14.07%3.52%9.07%
BEMB
Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
1.27%12.27%5.51%8.88%

Correlation

The correlation between EMHC and BEMB is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.93

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

0.94

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2023

0.94

The correlation between EMHC and BEMB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

EMHC vs. BEMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMHC
EMHC Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
EMHC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMHC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMHC Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
EMHC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMHC Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank

BEMB
BEMB Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
BEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
BEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
BEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
BEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
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.

EMHC vs. BEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) and Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB). 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.


EMHCBEMBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.45

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.65

2.68

-0.03

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.09

11.53

-0.45

EMHC vs. BEMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMHC Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the BEMB Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMHC and BEMB, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EMHCBEMBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.14

2.30

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.22

1.45

-1.24

Drawdowns

EMHC vs. BEMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMHC drawdown since its inception was -28.03%, which is greater than BEMB's maximum drawdown of -6.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMHC and BEMB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMHCBEMBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.03%

-6.17%

-21.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.37%

-3.67%

-0.70%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.67%

-6.17%

-1.50%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.03%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.32%

-0.34%

+0.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.91%

-0.94%

-8.97%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.04%

0.85%

+0.19%

Volatility

EMHC vs. BEMB - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) has a higher volatility of 1.89% compared to Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB) at 1.49%. This indicates that EMHC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BEMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMHCBEMBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.89%

1.49%

+0.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.16%

3.46%

+0.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.43%

4.26%

+1.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.06%

5.88%

+3.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.96%

5.88%

+3.08%

EMHC vs. BEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMHC has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than BEMB's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

EMHC vs. BEMB - Dividend Comparison

EMHC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.11%, less than BEMB's 6.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021
BEMB
Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
6.88%6.88%6.31%5.46%0.00%0.00%
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
6.11%6.16%5.95%5.12%5.11%2.97%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.93, EMHC and BEMB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

EMHC has higher volatility (1.89%) compared to BEMB (1.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMHC dropped -28.03% vs BEMB's -6.17%.

On 3-year performance, BEMB leads with 8.80% vs 8.74% for EMHC. On fees, BEMB is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BEMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, BEMB has performed better with a 8.80% return vs 8.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BEMB is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for EMHC.

BEMB has the higher dividend yield at 6.88%, compared with 6.11% for EMHC.

They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for EMHC and 0.18% for BEMB.

BEMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 2.14), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMHC and BEMB

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