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

Performance

EMHC vs. EMB - 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 USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB). 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 2.25% return, which is significantly lower than EMB's 2.51% return.


EMHC

1D
0.32%
1M
1.92%
YTD
2.25%
6M
2.02%
1Y
10.57%
3Y*
8.57%
5Y*
1.64%
10Y*

EMB

1D
0.32%
1M
1.90%
YTD
2.51%
6M
2.23%
1Y
10.51%
3Y*
9.48%
5Y*
1.98%
10Y*
3.33%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMHC vs. EMB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
2.25%14.07%3.52%10.06%-17.75%1.56%
EMB
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
2.51%13.85%5.54%10.62%-18.63%2.39%

Correlation

The correlation between EMHC and EMB is 0.95, 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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.96

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2021

0.96

The correlation between EMHC and EMB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - 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. EMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMHC
EMHC Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
EMHC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMHC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMHC Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
EMHC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMHC Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

EMB
EMB Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
EMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMB Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
EMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. EMB - 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 USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB). 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.


EMHCEMBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.36

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.43

2.34

+0.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.12

9.97

+0.15

EMHC vs. EMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMHC Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the EMB Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMHC and EMB, 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...

Drawdowns

EMHC vs. EMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMHC drawdown since its inception was -28.03%, smaller than the maximum EMB drawdown of -34.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMHC and EMB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMHCEMBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.03%

-34.70%

+6.67%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.37%

-4.51%

+0.14%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.67%

-7.95%

+0.28%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.03%

-28.74%

+0.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.24%

-0.17%

-0.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.80%

-5.04%

-4.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.05%

1.06%

-0.01%

Volatility

EMHC vs. EMB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) is 1.66%, while iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB) has a volatility of 1.80%. This indicates that EMHC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMHCEMBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.66%

1.80%

-0.14%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.29%

4.69%

-0.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.52%

5.69%

-0.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.07%

9.76%

-0.69%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.94%

9.96%

-1.02%

EMHC vs. EMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMHC has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than EMB's 0.39% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMHC vs. EMB - Dividend Comparison

EMHC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.07%, more than EMB's 5.02% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMB
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
5.02%4.98%5.46%4.74%5.04%3.89%3.88%4.51%5.64%4.54%4.83%4.84%
EMHC
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
6.07%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


With a correlation of 0.95, EMHC and EMB 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.

EMB has higher volatility (1.80%) compared to EMHC (1.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMHC dropped -28.03% vs EMB's -34.70%.

On 5-year performance, EMB leads with 1.98% vs 1.64% for EMHC. On fees, EMHC is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, EMHC has been the lower-risk option at 1.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EMB has performed better with a 1.98% return vs 1.64%. 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 0.39% for EMB.

EMHC has the higher dividend yield at 6.07%, compared with 5.02% for EMB.

EMHC tracks Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net, while EMB tracks J.P. Morgan EMBI Global Core Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for EMHC and 0.39% for EMB.

EMHC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.87), 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 EMB

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