PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GEMD vs. KHYB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GEMD vs. KHYB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (GEMD) and KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEMD achieves a 2.01% return, which is significantly lower than KHYB's 2.52% return.


GEMD

1D
0.37%
1M
1.24%
YTD
2.01%
6M
2.04%
1Y
11.11%
3Y*
8.42%
5Y*
10Y*

KHYB

1D
0.02%
1M
1.16%
YTD
2.52%
6M
3.51%
1Y
10.48%
3Y*
8.74%
5Y*
0.18%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GEMD vs. KHYB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
GEMD
Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
2.01%13.67%3.31%8.51%-15.70%
KHYB
KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF
2.52%9.59%10.79%3.50%-5.93%

Correlation

The correlation between GEMD and KHYB is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.54

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

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2022

0.40

The correlation between GEMD and KHYB shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (all time) to 0.54 (1 year), 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

GEMD vs. KHYB — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEMD
GEMD Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
GEMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GEMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
GEMD Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
GEMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
GEMD Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank

KHYB
KHYB Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
KHYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KHYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
KHYB Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
KHYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
KHYB Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
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.

GEMD vs. KHYB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (GEMD) and KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB). 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.


GEMDKHYBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.82

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.70

-0.32

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.40

2.65

-0.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.14

11.91

-1.77

GEMD vs. KHYB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEMD Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is lower than the KHYB Sharpe Ratio of 3.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEMD and KHYB, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GEMDKHYBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.02

3.09

-1.07

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.03

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.22

0.28

-0.06

Drawdowns

GEMD vs. KHYB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEMD drawdown since its inception was -24.56%, smaller than the maximum KHYB drawdown of -33.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEMD and KHYB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GEMDKHYBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.56%

-33.63%

+9.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.64%

-3.97%

-0.67%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.69%

-5.94%

-1.75%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.06%

-0.60%

+0.54%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.18%

-9.71%

+1.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.10%

0.88%

+0.22%

Volatility

GEMD vs. KHYB - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (GEMD) has a higher volatility of 1.85% compared to KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB) at 0.87%. This indicates that GEMD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KHYB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GEMDKHYBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.85%

0.87%

+0.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.39%

3.02%

+1.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.52%

3.40%

+2.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.95%

6.32%

+3.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.95%

5.71%

+4.24%

GEMD vs. KHYB - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEMD has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than KHYB's 0.69% expense ratio.


Dividends

GEMD vs. KHYB - Dividend Comparison

GEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.67%, less than KHYB's 8.13% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
GEMD
Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF
5.67%6.32%5.79%5.70%5.42%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
KHYB
KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF
8.13%7.59%10.11%15.55%9.67%6.22%4.76%4.86%2.56%

Frequently Asked Questions


GEMD and KHYB have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GEMD has higher volatility (1.85%) compared to KHYB (0.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEMD dropped -24.56% vs KHYB's -33.63%.

On 3-year performance, KHYB leads with 8.74% vs 8.42% for GEMD. On fees, GEMD is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, KHYB has been the lower-risk option at 0.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, KHYB has performed better with a 8.74% return vs 8.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GEMD is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for KHYB.

KHYB has the higher dividend yield at 8.13%, compared with 5.67% for GEMD.

GEMD tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs Emerging Markets USD Bond Index - Benchmark TR Net, while KHYB tracks JP Morgan Asia Credit Index Non-Investment Grade Corporate Index.. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for GEMD and 0.69% for KHYB.

KHYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.09 vs 2.02), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GEMD and KHYB

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