IBDW vs. CEMB
IBDW (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF) and CEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds from iShares - IBDW tracks the Bloomberg December 2031 Maturity Corporate Index while CEMB tracks the JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBDW returned 5.87%/yr vs 7.31%/yr for CEMB. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBDW charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CEMB.
Performance
IBDW vs. CEMB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBDW achieves a 0.14% return, which is significantly lower than CEMB's 1.49% return.
IBDW
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- 0.11%
- YTD
- 0.14%
- 6M
- 0.26%
- 1Y
- 5.40%
- 3Y*
- 5.87%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
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%
IBDW vs. CEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBDW iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF | 0.14% | 9.07% | 2.96% | 9.40% | -17.13% | 0.36% |
CEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF | 1.49% | 8.86% | 5.81% | 8.37% | -12.58% | -0.86% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBDW and CEMB is 0.76, 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 | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2021 | 0.71 |
The correlation between IBDW and CEMB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.80 - 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
IBDW vs. CEMB — Risk / Return Rank
IBDW
CEMB
IBDW vs. CEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF (IBDW) 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.
| IBDW | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.86 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.27 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.47 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.24 | 2.55 | -0.31 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.54 | 11.06 | -3.52 |
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
| IBDW | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.54 | 2.40 | -0.86 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.35 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.56 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.06 | 0.49 | -0.43 |
Drawdowns
IBDW vs. CEMB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBDW drawdown since its inception was -23.87%, which is greater than CEMB's maximum drawdown of -20.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBDW and CEMB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBDW | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.87% | -20.84% | -3.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.42% | -2.88% | +0.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.61% | -3.85% | -2.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -20.48% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -20.84% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.13% | -0.24% | -0.89% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.47% | -3.66% | -5.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.72% | 0.66% | +0.06% |
Volatility
IBDW vs. CEMB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF (IBDW) is 1.02%, while iShares J.P. Morgan EM Corporate Bond ETF (CEMB) has a volatility of 1.08%. This indicates that IBDW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBDW | CEMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.02% | 1.08% | -0.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.42% | 2.43% | -0.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.52% | 3.06% | +0.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.26% | 5.63% | +1.63% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.26% | 6.30% | +0.96% |
IBDW vs. CEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBDW has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than CEMB's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBDW vs. CEMB - Dividend Comparison
IBDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.79%, 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% |
IBDW iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF | 4.79% | 4.78% | 5.00% | 4.50% | 3.70% | 1.10% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBDW and CEMB have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CEMB has higher volatility (1.08%) compared to IBDW (1.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBDW dropped -23.87% vs CEMB's -20.84%.
On 3-year performance, CEMB leads with 7.31% vs 5.87% for IBDW. On fees, IBDW is cheaper at 0.10% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CEMB has performed better with a 7.31% return vs 5.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBDW is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CEMB.
CEMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.13%, compared with 4.79% for IBDW.
IBDW tracks Bloomberg December 2031 Maturity Corporate Index, while CEMB tracks JP Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBDW and 0.50% for CEMB.
CEMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 1.54), 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 IBDW 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