GDGB.L vs. CEMB

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GDGB.L (VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF) and CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDGB.L is a Gold fund tracking the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, while CEMB is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDGB.L returned 18.43%/yr vs 2.98%/yr for CEMB. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. GDGB.L charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CEMB.

Performance

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDGB.L achieves a -6.93% return, which is significantly lower than CEMB's 2.06% return.

GDGB.L

• 1D: 5.48%
• 1M: -15.21%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 6M: -6.07%
• 1Y: 49.43%
• 3Y*: 35.53%
• 5Y*: 18.43%
• 10Y*: —

CEMB

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 2.06%
• 6M: 1.67%
• 1Y: 8.29%
• 3Y*: 4.99%
• 5Y*: 2.98%
• 10Y*: 4.08%

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

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	-6.93%	138.26%	11.24%	3.69%	3.04%	-10.47%	19.56%	38.86%	-5.04%	-3.87%
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF	2.06%	1.11%	7.66%	2.96%	-2.19%	0.35%	3.63%	9.57%	3.21%	-3.58%

Correlation

The correlation between GDGB.L and CEMB is -0.09, 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	-0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2017	-0.02

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDGB.L	CEMB
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	100.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GDGB.L vs. CEMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDGB.L

GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 35
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

CEMB

CEMB Risk / Return Rank: 71
CEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
CEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
CEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.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.

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.

	GDGB.L	CEMB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.21	1.38	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	2.07	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.26	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.50	1.78	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.20	5.04	-0.84

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is comparable to the CEMB Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDGB.L and CEMB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDGB.L drawdown since its inception was -40.80%, which is greater than CEMB's maximum drawdown of -14.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDGB.L and CEMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDGB.L	CEMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.80%	-14.93%	-25.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.64%	-4.69%	-29.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.64%	-8.91%	-25.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.49%	-11.84%	-23.65%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-12.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.57%	-0.69%	-29.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.54%	-4.69%	-12.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.38%	1.65%	+10.73%

Volatility

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a higher volatility of 14.08% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) at 1.56%. This indicates that GDGB.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.

Volatility by Period

	GDGB.L	CEMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.08%	1.56%	+12.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.68%	4.51%	+30.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.88%	6.06%	+36.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.90%	8.06%	+24.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.21%	9.76%	+22.45%

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDGB.L has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is higher than CEMB's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDGB.L vs. CEMB - Dividend Comparison

GDGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.13%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF	5.13%	5.14%	5.11%	4.77%	4.29%	3.51%	3.86%	4.19%	4.66%	4.06%	4.26%	4.76%
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDGB.L and CEMB in my portfolio?

GDGB.L and CEMB have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GDGB.L or CEMB?

On fees, CEMB is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDGB.L or CEMB?

CEMB is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for GDGB.L.

What is the main difference between GDGB.L and CEMB?

GDGB.L is categorized as Gold, while CEMB is Corporate Bonds. GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, while CEMB tracks JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for GDGB.L and 0.50% for CEMB.