ERNS.L vs. CEMB
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF (ERNS.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB).
ERNS.L and CEMB are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. ERNS.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Markit iBoxx GBP Liquid Investment Grade Ultrashort Index. It was launched on Nov 16, 2013. CEMB is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. It was launched on Apr 17, 2012. Both ERNS.L and CEMB are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: ERNS.L or CEMB.
Key characteristics
| ERNS.L | CEMB | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 4.58% | 5.95% |
| 1Y Return | 5.62% | 12.34% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 3.55% | 0.05% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 2.37% | 1.62% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 1.57% | 3.15% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 8.17 | 3.07 |
| Sortino Ratio | 16.71 | 4.75 |
| Omega Ratio | 3.53 | 1.63 |
| Calmar Ratio | 48.02 | 1.02 |
| Martin Ratio | 214.15 | 21.56 |
| Ulcer Index | 0.03% | 0.59% |
| Daily Std Dev | 0.69% | 4.15% |
| Max Drawdown | -1.51% | -20.84% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | -1.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between ERNS.L and CEMB is 0.18, 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.
Performance
ERNS.L vs. CEMB - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, ERNS.L achieves a 4.58% return, which is significantly lower than CEMB's 5.95% return. Over the past 10 years, ERNS.L has underperformed CEMB with an annualized return of 1.57%, while CEMB has yielded a comparatively higher 3.15% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
ERNS.L vs. CEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison
ERNS.L has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than CEMB's 0.50% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
ERNS.L vs. CEMB - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF (ERNS.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB). 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.
Dividends
ERNS.L vs. CEMB - Dividend Comparison
ERNS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.26%, more than CEMB's 5.07% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ERNS.L iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF | 5.26% | 4.54% | 1.14% | 0.28% | 0.75% | 1.04% | 0.74% | 0.52% | 0.81% | 0.72% | 0.55% | 0.06% |
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF | 5.07% | 4.77% | 4.28% | 3.51% | 3.86% | 4.19% | 4.66% | 4.06% | 4.25% | 4.76% | 4.23% | 3.93% |
Drawdowns
ERNS.L vs. CEMB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ERNS.L drawdown since its inception was -1.51%, smaller than the maximum CEMB drawdown of -20.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ERNS.L and CEMB. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
ERNS.L vs. CEMB - Volatility Comparison
iShares £ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF (ERNS.L) has a higher volatility of 1.60% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) at 0.96%. This indicates that ERNS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.