IBAT vs. EMLC
IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and EMLC (VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while EMLC is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index Emerging Markets Global Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 124.45% vs 9.54% for EMLC. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for EMLC.
Performance
IBAT vs. EMLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 64.52% return, which is significantly higher than EMLC's 0.92% return.
IBAT
- 1D
- -1.22%
- 1M
- 10.03%
- YTD
- 64.52%
- 6M
- 57.93%
- 1Y
- 124.45%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMLC
- 1D
- -0.55%
- 1M
- 1.06%
- YTD
- 0.92%
- 6M
- 1.94%
- 1Y
- 9.54%
- 3Y*
- 6.92%
- 5Y*
- 1.17%
- 10Y*
- 2.14%
IBAT vs. EMLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF | 64.52% | 32.09% | -13.19% |
EMLC VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 0.92% | 18.81% | -1.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBAT and EMLC is 0.56, 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 | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024 | 0.50 |
The correlation between IBAT and EMLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
IBAT vs. EMLC — Risk / Return Rank
IBAT
EMLC
IBAT vs. EMLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC). 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.
| IBAT | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.16 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.68 | 1.27 | +0.41 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 10.21 | 1.55 | +8.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 26.91 | 5.34 | +21.57 |
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
| IBAT | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.75 | 1.39 | +3.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.13 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.21 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.41 | 0.11 | +1.31 |
Drawdowns
IBAT vs. EMLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum EMLC drawdown of -32.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and EMLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBAT | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.26% | -32.43% | +4.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.25% | -6.19% | -6.06% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -9.15% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -25.26% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -26.47% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.25% | -4.28% | +3.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.74% | -14.37% | +6.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.64% | 1.79% | +2.85% |
Volatility
IBAT vs. EMLC - Volatility Comparison
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 10.25% compared to VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) at 2.21%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBAT | EMLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.25% | 2.21% | +8.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.28% | 5.99% | +14.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.35% | 6.90% | +19.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.83% | 9.13% | +14.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.83% | 10.05% | +13.78% |
IBAT vs. EMLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than EMLC's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBAT vs. EMLC - Dividend Comparison
IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than EMLC's 6.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMLC VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 6.19% | 5.91% | 6.55% | 5.97% | 5.54% | 5.25% | 4.90% | 6.25% | 6.50% | 5.34% | 5.32% | 6.25% |
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF | 0.70% | 1.15% | 1.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBAT and EMLC have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IBAT has higher volatility (10.25%) compared to EMLC (2.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs EMLC's -32.43%.
On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 9.54% for EMLC. On fees, EMLC is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, EMLC has been the lower-risk option at 2.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 9.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMLC is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.
EMLC has the higher dividend yield at 6.19%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.
IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while EMLC is Emerging Markets Bonds. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while EMLC tracks J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index Emerging Markets Global Core Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.30% for EMLC.
IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 1.39), 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 IBAT and EMLC
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