PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EMHC vs. CBON
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EMHC vs. CBON

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 1.55%/yr vs 2.03%/yr for CBON. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMHC charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CBON.

Performance

EMHC vs. CBON - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). 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 lower than CBON's 5.41% return.

EMHC

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

CBON

1D
0.10%
1M
1.75%
YTD
5.41%
6M
6.88%
1Y
9.26%
3Y*
5.05%
5Y*
2.03%
10Y*
2.93%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMHC vs. CBON - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF		1.57%14.07%3.52%10.06%-17.75%1.68%
CBON
VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF		5.41%5.46%1.85%2.92%-7.99%6.05%

Correlation

The correlation between EMHC and CBON is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.31

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

0.31

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021

0.27

EMHC vs. CBON - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EMHC
CBON

Financial Services

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

100.0%

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

EMHC
100.0%
CBON

-

Basic Materials

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Communication Services

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Consumer Cyclical

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Consumer Defensive

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Energy

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Healthcare

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Industrials

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Real Estate

EMHC

-

CBON
100.0%

Technology

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Utilities

EMHC

-

CBON

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF

VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF

Often compared with EMHC:
EMHC vs. XEMDEMHC vs. EMBEMHC vs. VEMBXEMHC vs. VEGBXEMHC vs. GABFEMHC vs. VWOBEMHC vs. SPHY
Often compared with CBON:
CBON vs. PICBCBON vs. GRNBCBON vs. BNDXCBON vs. CEWCBON vs. MCHICBON vs. VGTCBON vs. ANGL

Return for Risk

EMHC vs. CBON — 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
CBON
CBON Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
CBON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CBON Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
CBON Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
CBON Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CBON Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
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. 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.

EMHCCBONDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.14
2.70

-0.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.24
4.09

-0.85

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.54

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.65

6.94

-4.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.09

25.86

-14.77

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMHC vs. CBON - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMHC Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the CBON Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMHC and CBON, 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

EMHCCBONDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.14

2.70

-0.56

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.17

0.41

-0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.53

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.22

0.42

-0.21

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

EMHCCBONDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest 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

-7.67%

-4.56%

-3.11%

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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.32%

-0.02%

-0.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.91%

-3.99%

-5.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.04%

0.36%

+0.68%

Volatility

EMHC vs. CBON - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) has a higher volatility of 1.89% compared to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) at 0.91%. This indicates that EMHC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBON based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EMHCCBONDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.89%

0.91%

+0.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.16%

2.62%

+1.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.43%

3.45%

+1.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.06%

4.93%

+4.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.96%

5.58%

+3.38%

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 6.11%, more than CBON's 1.52% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CBON
VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF		1.52%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		6.11%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 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMHC has higher volatility (1.89%) compared to CBON (0.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMHC dropped -28.03% vs CBON's -14.13%.

On 5-year performance, CBON leads with 2.03% vs 1.55% for EMHC. On fees, EMHC is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 0.91%. 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 2.03% return vs 1.55%. 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 6.11%, compared with 1.52% 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 (2.70 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 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