PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares USD Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ERNA.L) and VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ERNA.L achieves a 1.75% return, which is significantly lower than GFGB.L's 3.69% return.


ERNA.L

1D
0.00%
1M
0.31%
YTD
1.75%
6M
1.92%
1Y
4.25%
3Y*
5.14%
5Y*
3.79%
10Y*

GFGB.L

1D
0.25%
1M
1.19%
YTD
3.69%
6M
4.02%
1Y
7.63%
3Y*
9.06%
5Y*
3.20%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
ERNA.L
iShares USD Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
1.75%4.85%5.65%5.44%1.46%0.11%1.27%3.19%1.14%
GFGB.L
VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF
3.69%10.14%6.06%9.78%-12.76%2.37%16.54%14.18%-0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between ERNA.L and GFGB.L is 0.01, 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

0.01

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

0.03

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

0.12

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018

0.08

The correlation between ERNA.L and GFGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.01 (1 year) to 0.12 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ERNA.L
ERNA.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
ERNA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ERNA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
ERNA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
ERNA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
ERNA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank

GFGB.L
GFGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
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.

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ERNA.L) and VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.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.


ERNA.LGFGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

2.05

1.21

+0.84

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

13.37

1.95

+11.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

54.91

6.17

+48.74

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ERNA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.96, which is higher than the GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ERNA.L and GFGB.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

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ERNA.L drawdown since its inception was -8.63%, smaller than the maximum GFGB.L drawdown of -41.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ERNA.L and GFGB.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ERNA.LGFGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-8.63%

-41.73%

+33.10%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.32%

-3.90%

+3.58%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.33%

-5.31%

+4.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-0.81%

-23.12%

+22.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.00%

-1.06%

+1.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.10%

-16.59%

+16.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.08%

1.23%

-1.15%

Volatility

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares USD Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ERNA.L) is 0.39%, while VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) has a volatility of 2.07%. This indicates that ERNA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GFGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ERNA.LGFGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.39%

2.07%

-1.68%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.22%

6.18%

-4.96%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.43%

7.05%

-5.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

1.24%

8.62%

-7.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.25%

13.56%

-11.31%

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ERNA.L has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than GFGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

ERNA.L vs. GFGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ERNA.L nor GFGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


ERNA.L and GFGB.L have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ERNA.L is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ERNA.L is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GFGB.L.

ERNA.L is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while GFGB.L is High Yield Bonds. ERNA.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp 1-3 Yr TR USD, while GFGB.L tracks ICE BofA Gbl HY Constnd TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for ERNA.L and 0.40% for GFGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ERNA.L and GFGB.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