PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMUG.L) and iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF (FLO5.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMUG.L achieves a -4.61% return, which is significantly lower than FLO5.L's 2.13% return.


EMUG.L

1D
-2.86%
1M
-3.42%
6M
-4.66%
YTD
-4.61%
1Y
-0.64%
3Y*
3.42%
5Y*
0.93%
10Y*

FLO5.L

1D
-0.73%
1M
-0.09%
6M
1.91%
YTD
2.13%
1Y
3.97%
3Y*
4.61%
5Y*
4.81%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EMUG.L
L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
-4.61%1.10%7.35%1.04%-0.88%-25.37%
FLO5.L
iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF
2.13%-2.05%8.11%0.76%13.56%1.86%

Correlation

The correlation between EMUG.L and FLO5.L is 0.80, 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

0.80

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

0.76

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

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2021

0.79

The correlation between EMUG.L and FLO5.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.80 - 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

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMUG.L
EMUG.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
EMUG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMUG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMUG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
EMUG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMUG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99
Martin Ratio Rank

FLO5.L
FLO5.L Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
FLO5.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLO5.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLO5.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
FLO5.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLO5.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2323
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.

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMUG.L) and iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF (FLO5.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.


EMUG.LFLO5.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.01

1.11

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.00

0.91

-0.91

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.01

2.38

-2.37

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMUG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.00, which is lower than the FLO5.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMUG.L and FLO5.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

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMUG.L drawdown since its inception was -30.45%, which is greater than FLO5.L's maximum drawdown of -14.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMUG.L and FLO5.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMUG.LFLO5.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.45%

-14.02%

-16.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.95%

-4.32%

-2.63%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-8.64%

-9.46%

+0.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.29%

-14.02%

+2.73%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.67%

-3.23%

-19.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.29%

-5.64%

-18.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.32%

1.67%

+1.65%

Volatility

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EMUG.L) has a higher volatility of 3.48% compared to iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF (FLO5.L) at 1.82%. This indicates that EMUG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLO5.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMUG.LFLO5.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.48%

1.82%

+1.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.25%

4.79%

+0.46%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.94%

6.43%

+0.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.08%

8.64%

-0.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.93%

8.90%

+5.03%

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMUG.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FLO5.L's 0.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMUG.L vs. FLO5.L - Dividend Comparison

EMUG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.27%, less than FLO5.L's 4.75% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMUG.L
L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
3.27%5.99%4.86%4.67%3.61%1.14%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
FLO5.L
iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF
4.75%5.11%5.98%5.63%1.47%0.59%1.73%3.00%2.16%0.48%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMUG.L and FLO5.L have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLO5.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLO5.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EMUG.L.

EMUG.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while FLO5.L is Corporate Bonds. EMUG.L tracks J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index, while FLO5.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD. They also come from different issuers: L&G and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EMUG.L and 0.10% for FLO5.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMUG.L and FLO5.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