EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) and ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK).

EMLP.L and 3199.HK are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EMLP.L is a passively managed fund by PIMCO that tracks the performance of the JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. It was launched on Sep 19, 2011. 3199.HK is a passively managed fund by CSOP that tracks the performance of the FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond. It was launched on Feb 24, 2022. Both EMLP.L and 3199.HK are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) and ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMLP.L PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc	0.89%	9.10%	-1.68%	7.52%	5.55%	-4.33%	-1.55%	9.55%	-1.46%	2.43%
3199.HK ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF	4.48%	-1.92%	5.29%	-2.80%	4.49%	7.99%	7.87%	-2.71%	6.31%	-3.72%

Different Trading Currencies

EMLP.L is traded in GBP, while 3199.HK is traded in HKD. To make them comparable, the 3199.HK values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLP.L achieves a 0.89% return, which is significantly lower than 3199.HK's 4.48% return. Over the past 10 years, EMLP.L has outperformed 3199.HK with an annualized return of 3.93%, while 3199.HK has yielded a comparatively lower 3.14% annualized return.

EMLP.L

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -2.49%
• YTD: 0.89%
• 6M: 3.49%
• 1Y: 8.61%
• 3Y*: 4.03%
• 5Y*: 4.80%
• 10Y*: 3.93%

3199.HK

• 1D: 0.71%
• 1M: 1.91%
• YTD: 4.48%
• 6M: 6.76%
• 1Y: 5.56%
• 3Y*: 1.44%
• 5Y*: 3.90%
• 10Y*: 3.14%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMLP.L has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than 3199.HK's 0.62% expense ratio.

3199.HK

ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF

EMLP.L

PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc

Return for Risk

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMLP.L

EMLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
EMLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
EMLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 70
EMLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
EMLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

3199.HK

3199.HK Risk / Return Rank: 89
3199.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
3199.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
3199.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 85
3199.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
3199.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) and ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK). 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.

	EMLP.L	3199.HK	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	0.71	+0.82
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	1.08	+1.18
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.12	+0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	0.18	+1.90
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.36	0.32	+7.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is higher than the 3199.HK Sharpe Ratio of 0.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLP.L and 3199.HK, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMLP.L	3199.HK	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.54	0.71	+0.82
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	0.45	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41	0.34	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.49	-0.16

Correlation

The correlation between EMLP.L and 3199.HK is 0.38, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Dividend Comparison

EMLP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while 3199.HK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.30%.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMLP.L PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
3199.HK ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF	3.30%	3.34%	3.43%	3.51%	3.65%	3.40%	3.29%	3.57%	3.62%	3.39%	3.56%	3.69%

Drawdowns

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLP.L drawdown since its inception was -20.02%, which is greater than 3199.HK's maximum drawdown of -16.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLP.L and 3199.HK.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMLP.L	3199.HK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.02%	-11.05%	-8.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.29%	-1.67%	-2.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.25%	-11.05%	-0.20%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.12%	-11.05%	-8.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.93%	-0.17%	-2.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.14%	-3.30%	-2.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.21%	0.71%	+0.50%

Volatility

EMLP.L vs. 3199.HK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) is 2.37%, while ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK) has a volatility of 2.95%. This indicates that EMLP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than 3199.HK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMLP.L	3199.HK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.37%	2.95%	-0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.23%	6.09%	-1.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.58%	8.66%	-3.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.14%	9.83%	-1.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.64%	10.82%	-1.18%