PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.L) and iShares € Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged ESG SRI UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IRCP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMHG.L is traded in GBP, while IRCP.L is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the IRCP.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMHG.L achieves a 1.82% return, which is significantly higher than IRCP.L's -1.35% return.


EMHG.L

1D
0.30%
1M
-0.56%
6M
2.08%
YTD
1.82%
1Y
9.87%
3Y*
8.37%
5Y*
0.93%
10Y*

IRCP.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-1.86%
6M
-0.68%
YTD
-1.35%
1Y
0.73%
3Y*
4.72%
5Y*
2.50%
10Y*
1.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
EMHG.L
iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
1.82%13.40%5.31%8.97%-19.93%-2.50%3.49%13.78%-3.63%
IRCP.L
iShares € Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged ESG SRI UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)
-1.35%9.79%1.63%3.04%2.28%-6.16%6.54%-1.90%-0.60%

Correlation

The correlation between EMHG.L and IRCP.L is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.10

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

0.04

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

0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2018

0.10

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

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMHG.L
EMHG.L Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
EMHG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank

IRCP.L
IRCP.L Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
IRCP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IRCP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
IRCP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
IRCP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
IRCP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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.

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.L) and iShares € Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged ESG SRI UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IRCP.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.

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.


EMHG.LIRCP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.55

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.46

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.03

+0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.28

0.32

+1.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.28

0.87

+8.41

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMHG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is higher than the IRCP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMHG.L and IRCP.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMHG.L drawdown since its inception was -29.64%, which is greater than IRCP.L's maximum drawdown of -19.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMHG.L and IRCP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMHG.LIRCP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.64%

-19.15%

-10.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.44%

-2.41%

-2.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.62%

-2.41%

-5.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.64%

-8.09%

-21.55%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-12.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.56%

-2.41%

+1.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.30%

-5.61%

-2.69%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.09%

0.87%

+0.22%

Volatility

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.L) has a higher volatility of 1.37% compared to iShares € Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged ESG SRI UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IRCP.L) at 1.05%. This indicates that EMHG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IRCP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMHG.LIRCP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.37%

1.05%

+0.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.88%

3.47%

+1.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.90%

4.62%

+1.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.00%

6.05%

+2.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.02%

7.09%

+2.93%

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMHG.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IRCP.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMHG.L vs. IRCP.L - Dividend Comparison

EMHG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.17%, more than IRCP.L's 2.58% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMHG.L
iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
6.17%5.71%5.74%5.61%5.64%3.93%3.85%4.73%3.64%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IRCP.L
iShares € Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged ESG SRI UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)
2.58%2.91%3.70%2.52%0.43%0.70%0.82%0.92%0.58%0.71%1.35%1.47%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMHG.L and IRCP.L have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IRCP.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IRCP.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMHG.L.

EMHG.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while IRCP.L is Global Bonds. EMHG.L tracks J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified Core, while IRCP.L tracks iShares € Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged ESG SRI UCITS ETF EUR (Dist). Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EMHG.L and 0.25% for IRCP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMHG.L and IRCP.L

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