GRNB vs. CBON

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GRNB (VanEck Green Bond ETF) and CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRNB is a Global Bonds fund tracking the S&P Green Bond U.S. Dollar Select Index, while CBON is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GRNB returned 0.76%/yr vs 2.24%/yr for CBON. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRNB charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CBON.

Performance

GRNB vs. CBON - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Green Bond ETF (GRNB) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRNB achieves a 0.59% return, which is significantly lower than CBON's 5.02% return.

GRNB

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.64%
• YTD: 0.59%
• 6M: 0.70%
• 1Y: 4.37%
• 3Y*: 5.19%
• 5Y*: 0.76%
• 10Y*: —

CBON

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 5.02%
• 6M: 5.83%
• 1Y: 8.58%
• 3Y*: 5.20%
• 5Y*: 2.24%
• 10Y*: 3.00%

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

GRNB vs. CBON - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GRNB VanEck Green Bond ETF	0.59%	7.09%	3.31%	7.08%	-11.93%	-2.36%	7.98%	5.40%	-4.07%	9.87%
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	5.02%	5.46%	1.85%	2.92%	-7.99%	5.93%	12.01%	2.67%	1.88%	6.41%

Correlation

The correlation between GRNB and CBON is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2017	0.19

Return for Risk

GRNB vs. CBON — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRNB

GRNB Risk / Return Rank: 42
GRNB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GRNB Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
GRNB Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GRNB Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GRNB Martin Ratio Rank: 42

CBON

CBON Risk / Return Rank: 88
CBON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
CBON Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
CBON Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CBON Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CBON Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

GRNB vs. CBON - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Green Bond ETF (GRNB) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). 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.

	GRNB	CBON	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.47	2.51	-1.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.15	3.81	-1.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.50	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.75	6.44	-4.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.74	24.01	-17.27

GRNB vs. CBON - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRNB Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is lower than the CBON Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRNB and CBON, 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

GRNB vs. CBON - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRNB drawdown since its inception was -18.08%, which is greater than CBON's maximum drawdown of -14.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRNB and CBON.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRNB	CBON	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.08%	-14.13%	-3.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.51%	-1.34%	-1.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.24%	-4.56%	+0.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.94%	-14.13%	-3.81%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.41%	-0.43%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.56%	-3.98%	-0.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	0.36%	+0.29%

Volatility

GRNB vs. CBON - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Green Bond ETF (GRNB) has a higher volatility of 0.81% compared to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) at 0.65%. This indicates that GRNB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBON based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GRNB	CBON	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.81%	0.65%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.40%	2.61%	-0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.99%	3.44%	-0.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.92%	4.92%	0.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.87%	5.57%	-0.70%

GRNB vs. CBON - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRNB has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CBON's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRNB vs. CBON - Dividend Comparison

GRNB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.23%, more than CBON's 1.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	1.53%	1.66%	2.15%	3.01%	2.70%	3.05%	2.87%	3.87%	3.39%	3.33%	3.25%	2.78%
GRNB VanEck Green Bond ETF	4.23%	4.18%	3.83%	3.17%	2.60%	1.97%	2.24%	1.79%	1.21%	1.09%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRNB and CBON in my portfolio?

GRNB and CBON have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GRNB or CBON?

GRNB has higher volatility (0.81%) compared to CBON (0.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRNB dropped -18.08% vs CBON's -14.13%.

Which ETF is better, GRNB or CBON?

On 5-year performance, CBON leads with 2.24% vs 0.76% for GRNB. On fees, GRNB is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 0.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GRNB or CBON?

Over the 5-year period, CBON has performed better with a 2.24% return vs 0.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRNB or CBON?

GRNB is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CBON.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GRNB or CBON?

GRNB has the higher dividend yield at 4.23%, compared with 1.53% for CBON.

What is the main difference between GRNB and CBON?

GRNB is categorized as Global Bonds, while CBON is Emerging Markets Bonds. GRNB tracks S&P Green Bond U.S. Dollar Select Index, while CBON tracks ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GRNB and 0.50% for CBON.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 1.47), 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.