PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

IBTG.L (iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)) and CYGB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - IBTG.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist), while CYGB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IBTG.L returned 1.54%/yr vs 5.44%/yr for CYGB.L. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBTG.L charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CYGB.L.

Performance

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (IBTG.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBTG.L achieves a 0.68% return, which is significantly lower than CYGB.L's 3.55% return.

IBTG.L

1D
0.08%
1M
0.08%
6M
0.68%
YTD
0.68%
1Y
3.11%
3Y*
4.05%
5Y*
1.54%
10Y*
—

CYGB.L

1D
0.10%
1M
0.74%
6M
3.19%
YTD
3.55%
1Y
3.60%
3Y*
6.74%
5Y*
5.44%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
IBTG.L
iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)		0.68%5.08%3.75%3.65%-4.56%-0.62%
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)		3.55%2.20%11.38%7.14%2.11%2.84%

Correlation

The correlation between IBTG.L and CYGB.L is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.13

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

0.04

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.07

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021

0.07

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)

iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)

Return for Risk

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IBTG.L
IBTG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
IBTG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBTG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBTG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
IBTG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBTG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank
CYGB.L
CYGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (IBTG.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L). 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.

IBTG.LCYGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.79
1.32

+0.47

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.86
1.99

+0.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.28

+0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.62

5.18

-0.55

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.41

11.91

+2.50

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBTG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBTG.L and CYGB.L, 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...

Drawdowns

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBTG.L drawdown since its inception was -6.15%, which is greater than CYGB.L's maximum drawdown of -1.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTG.L and CYGB.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IBTG.LCYGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-6.15%

-1.56%

-4.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.67%

-0.69%

+0.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.85%

-1.56%

+0.71%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-6.13%

-1.56%

-4.57%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.25%

-0.24%

-1.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.22%

0.30%

-0.08%

Volatility

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (IBTG.L) is 0.45%, while iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) has a volatility of 0.59%. This indicates that IBTG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CYGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IBTG.LCYGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.45%

0.59%

-0.14%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.14%

2.22%

-1.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.73%

2.71%

-0.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.43%

2.37%

+0.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.07%

2.33%

-0.26%

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBTG.L has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than CYGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBTG.L vs. CYGB.L - Dividend Comparison

IBTG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.87%, more than CYGB.L's 1.70% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)		1.70%1.84%2.13%2.38%2.68%2.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IBTG.L
iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)		3.87%4.08%4.12%2.92%0.76%0.59%1.66%2.35%0.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

IBTG.L and CYGB.L have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IBTG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IBTG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CYGB.L.

IBTG.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CYGB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. IBTG.L tracks iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist), while CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBTG.L and 0.40% for CYGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IBTG.L and CYGB.L

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