IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L
IBTM.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist)) and CNYB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - IBTM.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 7-10 Year Bond Index, while CNYB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IBTM.L returned -0.99%/yr vs 3.62%/yr for CNYB.L. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBTM.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNYB.L.
Performance
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBTM.L achieves a -0.63% return, which is significantly lower than CNYB.L's 5.84% return.
IBTM.L
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- -1.55%
- 6M
- 0.29%
- YTD
- -0.63%
- 1Y
- 3.42%
- 3Y*
- 1.35%
- 5Y*
- -0.99%
- 10Y*
- 0.35%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.15%
CNYB.L
- 1D
- 0.48%
- 1M
- -0.47%
- 6M
- 5.32%
- YTD
- 5.84%
- 1Y
- 8.43%
- 3Y*
- 4.48%
- 5Y*
- 3.62%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -0.08%
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTM.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist) | -0.63% | 0.89% | 1.46% | -2.26% | -4.74% | -1.77% | 6.02% | -3.91% |
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 5.84% | -2.20% | 6.65% | -4.09% | 6.21% | 9.69% | -19.80% | 0.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTM.L and CNYB.L is 0.68, 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 | 0.68 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2019 | 0.48 |
Over the past year, IBTM.L and CNYB.L have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.48, 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
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L — Risk / Return Rank
IBTM.L
CNYB.L
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist) (IBTM.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.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.
| IBTM.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.25 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.61 | 3.05 | -2.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.35 | 7.25 | -5.90 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTM.L drawdown since its inception was -52.39%, which is greater than CNYB.L's maximum drawdown of -25.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTM.L and CNYB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBTM.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.39% | -25.82% | -26.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.57% | -2.75% | -2.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.57% | -9.03% | +1.46% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.29% | -15.44% | -0.85% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.54% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.53% | -6.58% | -14.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.63% | -12.52% | -8.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.52% | 1.16% | +1.36% |
Volatility
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist) (IBTM.L) has a higher volatility of 1.66% compared to iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) at 1.37%. This indicates that IBTM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNYB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBTM.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.66% | 1.37% | +0.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.59% | 4.71% | -0.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.27% | 6.31% | -0.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.39% | 7.65% | +1.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.82% | 11.47% | -1.65% |
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBTM.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CNYB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBTM.L vs. CNYB.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.37%, more than CNYB.L's 1.71% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.71% | 1.89% | 2.24% | 2.55% | 2.72% | 2.74% | 2.65% | 0.72% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBTM.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist) | 4.37% | 4.19% | 3.94% | 3.16% | 1.96% | 1.14% | 1.69% | 2.53% | 2.34% | 2.02% | 1.79% | 1.97% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBTM.L and CNYB.L have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBTM.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBTM.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNYB.L.
IBTM.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CNYB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. IBTM.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 7-10 Year Bond Index, while CNYB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTM.L and 0.35% for CNYB.L.
Find the right allocation for IBTM.L and CNYB.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