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

Performance

EMLB.L vs. EMHG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMLB.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLB.L achieves a 2.65% return, which is significantly higher than EMHG.L's 1.63% return.


EMLB.L

1D
-0.01%
1M
-0.21%
6M
1.96%
YTD
2.65%
1Y
8.18%
3Y*
5.81%
5Y*
3.92%
10Y*
3.09%

EMHG.L

1D
-0.50%
1M
-0.52%
6M
2.26%
YTD
1.63%
1Y
10.27%
3Y*
9.35%
5Y*
0.45%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
EMLB.L
PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
2.65%17.08%-3.25%13.74%-5.70%-5.53%1.91%13.10%-9.33%
EMHG.L
iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
1.63%21.96%3.55%14.71%-28.49%-3.39%6.66%18.35%-13.18%

Correlation

The correlation between EMLB.L and EMHG.L is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.61

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

0.58

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

0.58

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

0.53

The correlation between EMLB.L and EMHG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.61 - 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

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

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

EMLB.L
EMLB.L Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
EMLB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMLB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMLB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
EMLB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMLB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank

EMHG.L
EMHG.L Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
EMHG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
EMHG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMHG.L 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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMLB.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.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.


EMLB.LEMHG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.18

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.49

1.40

+0.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.86

4.56

+0.30

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

The current EMLB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the EMHG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLB.L and EMHG.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

EMLB.L vs. EMHG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLB.L drawdown since its inception was -29.75%, smaller than the maximum EMHG.L drawdown of -44.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLB.L and EMHG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMLB.LEMHG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.75%

-44.35%

+14.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.48%

-7.32%

+1.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.50%

-13.72%

+6.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.09%

-43.78%

+23.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-21.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.30%

-1.44%

+0.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.33%

-13.88%

+4.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.68%

2.25%

-0.57%

Volatility

EMLB.L vs. EMHG.L - Volatility Comparison

PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMLB.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (EMHG.L) have volatilities of 2.01% and 2.03%, 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


EMLB.LEMHG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.01%

2.03%

-0.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.18%

7.76%

-1.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.00%

10.00%

-3.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.48%

14.60%

-5.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.58%

15.24%

-5.66%

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

EMLB.L has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than EMHG.L's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMLB.L vs. EMHG.L - Dividend Comparison

EMLB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMHG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.19%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
EMHG.L
iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
6.19%5.71%5.74%5.61%5.64%3.93%3.85%4.73%3.64%
EMLB.L
PIMCO Advantage Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMLB.L and EMHG.L have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EMLB.L is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EMLB.L is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMHG.L.

EMLB.L tracks PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Currency Bond Index, while EMHG.L tracks J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified Core. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for EMLB.L and 0.50% for EMHG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMLB.L and EMHG.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