IAGG vs. CEMB
IAGG (iShares Core International Aggregate Bond ETF) and CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAGG is a Global Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Global Aggregate ex USD 10% Issuer Capped (Hedged) Index, while CEMB is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IAGG returned 2.17%/yr vs 3.49%/yr for CEMB. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAGG charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CEMB.
Performance
IAGG vs. CEMB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IAGG achieves a 0.92% return, which is significantly lower than CEMB's 1.49% return. Over the past 10 years, IAGG has underperformed CEMB with an annualized return of 2.17%, while CEMB has yielded a comparatively higher 3.49% annualized return.
IAGG
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.66%
- YTD
- 0.92%
- 6M
- 0.72%
- 1Y
- 2.30%
- 3Y*
- 4.59%
- 5Y*
- 1.11%
- 10Y*
- 2.17%
CEMB
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- 1.49%
- 6M
- 1.83%
- 1Y
- 7.31%
- 3Y*
- 7.31%
- 5Y*
- 1.97%
- 10Y*
- 3.49%
IAGG vs. CEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IAGG iShares Core International Aggregate Bond ETF | 0.92% | 3.26% | 4.51% | 8.49% | -10.86% | -1.87% | 4.63% | 7.99% | 3.38% | 2.09% |
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF | 1.49% | 8.86% | 5.81% | 8.37% | -12.58% | -0.59% | 6.77% | 13.90% | -2.57% | 7.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between IAGG and CEMB is 0.63, 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 | 0.63 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.61 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2015 | 0.41 |
Over the past year, IAGG and CEMB have become more correlated (0.63) than their long-term average of 0.41, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
IAGG vs. CEMB — Risk / Return Rank
IAGG
CEMB
IAGG vs. CEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core International Aggregate Bond ETF (IAGG) 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.
| IAGG | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.59 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.47 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.00 | 2.55 | -1.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.99 | 11.06 | -8.07 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IAGG | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.81 | 2.40 | -1.59 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.25 | 0.35 | -0.10 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.54 | 0.56 | -0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.62 | 0.49 | +0.12 |
Drawdowns
IAGG vs. CEMB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IAGG drawdown since its inception was -13.88%, smaller than the maximum CEMB drawdown of -20.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAGG and CEMB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IAGG | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.88% | -20.84% | +6.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.32% | -2.88% | +0.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.32% | -3.85% | +1.53% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.57% | -20.48% | +6.91% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -13.88% | -20.84% | +6.96% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.98% | -0.24% | -0.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.85% | -3.66% | +0.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.77% | 0.66% | +0.11% |
Volatility
IAGG vs. CEMB - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core International Aggregate Bond ETF (IAGG) has a higher volatility of 1.18% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) at 1.08%. This indicates that IAGG'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IAGG | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.18% | 1.08% | +0.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.40% | 2.43% | -0.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.84% | 3.06% | -0.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.51% | 5.63% | -1.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.05% | 6.30% | -2.25% |
IAGG vs. CEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison
IAGG has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CEMB's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
IAGG vs. CEMB - Dividend Comparison
IAGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.66%, less than CEMB's 5.13% yield.
| 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% |
IAGG iShares Core International Aggregate Bond ETF | 3.66% | 3.08% | 4.28% | 3.55% | 2.27% | 1.16% | 1.95% | 2.82% | 3.02% | 1.74% | 1.56% | 0.13% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IAGG and CEMB have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IAGG has higher volatility (1.18%) compared to CEMB (1.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAGG dropped -13.88% vs CEMB's -20.84%.
On 10-year performance, CEMB leads with 3.49% vs 2.17% for IAGG. On fees, IAGG is cheaper at 0.07% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CEMB has performed better with a 3.49% return vs 2.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IAGG is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CEMB.
CEMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.13%, compared with 3.66% for IAGG.
IAGG is categorized as Global Bonds, while CEMB is Corporate Bonds. IAGG tracks Bloomberg Global Aggregate ex USD 10% Issuer Capped (Hedged) Index, while CEMB tracks JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IAGG and 0.50% for CEMB.
CEMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 0.81), 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.
Find the right allocation for IAGG and CEMB
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