EMHC vs. CBON
EMHC (SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF) and CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - EMHC tracks the Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net while CBON tracks the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMHC returned 1.15%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for CBON. Their 0.26 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EMHC charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CBON.
Performance
EMHC vs. CBON - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMHC achieves a 0.55% return, which is significantly lower than CBON's 5.60% return.
EMHC
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- -1.67%
- 6M
- 0.23%
- YTD
- 0.55%
- 1Y
- 6.90%
- 3Y*
- 7.66%
- 5Y*
- 1.15%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 1.66%
CBON
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 4.91%
- YTD
- 5.60%
- 1Y
- 9.19%
- 3Y*
- 5.03%
- 5Y*
- 2.07%
- 10Y*
- 2.94%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.46%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $134.57K | $162.86K | $181.24K | |
| $1.11M | $1.05M | $1.14M |
EMHC vs. CBON - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF | 0.55% | 14.07% | 3.52% | 10.06% | -17.75% | 1.56% |
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.60% | 5.46% | 1.85% | 2.92% | -7.99% | 5.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMHC and CBON is 0.25, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2021 | 0.26 |
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. CBON — Risk / Return Rank
EMHC
CBON
EMHC vs. CBON - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| EMHC | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.10 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.53 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.65 | 7.18 | -5.52 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.59 | 27.79 | -21.20 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMHC vs. CBON - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMHC drawdown since its inception was -28.03%, which is greater than CBON's maximum drawdown of -14.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMHC and CBON.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMHC | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.03% | -14.13% | -13.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.37% | -1.34% | -3.03% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.74% | -4.56% | -2.18% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.03% | -14.13% | -13.90% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -14.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.90% | -0.04% | -1.86% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.63% | -3.94% | -5.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.09% | 0.35% | +0.74% |
Volatility
EMHC vs. CBON - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) have volatilities of 1.28% and 1.22%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMHC | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.28% | 1.22% | +0.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.36% | 2.76% | +1.60% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.47% | 3.59% | +1.88% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.07% | 4.87% | +4.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.87% | 5.54% | +3.33% |
EMHC vs. CBON - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMHC has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than CBON's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMHC vs. CBON - Dividend Comparison
EMHC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.19%, more than CBON's 1.51% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 1.37% | 1.66% | 2.15% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.87% | 3.87% | 3.39% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% |
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF | 5.71% | 6.16% | 5.95% | 5.12% | 5.11% | 2.97% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMHC and CBON have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EMHC has higher volatility (1.28%) compared to CBON (1.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMHC dropped -28.03% vs CBON's -14.13%.
On 5-year performance, CBON leads with 2.07% vs 1.15% for EMHC. On fees, EMHC is cheaper at 0.23% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CBON has performed better with a 2.07% return vs 1.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMHC is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CBON.
EMHC has the higher dividend yield at 5.71%, compared with 1.37% for CBON.
EMHC tracks Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net, while CBON tracks ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for EMHC and 0.50% for CBON.
CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 1.32), 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.
Find the right allocation for EMHC and CBON
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