IBTM.L vs. CYGB.L
IBTM.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist)) and CYGB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (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 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, IBTM.L returned -0.99%/yr vs 5.34%/yr for CYGB.L. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBTM.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CYGB.L.
Performance
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.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 CYGB.L's 3.27% 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%
CYGB.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.51%
- 6M
- 2.73%
- YTD
- 3.27%
- 1Y
- 3.49%
- 3Y*
- 6.57%
- 5Y*
- 5.34%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.31%
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTM.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF (Dist) | -0.63% | 0.89% | 1.46% | -2.26% | -4.74% | 4.29% |
CYGB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 3.27% | 2.20% | 11.38% | 7.14% | 2.11% | 2.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTM.L and CYGB.L is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021 | 0.06 |
The correlation between IBTM.L and CYGB.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (1 year) to 0.06 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. CYGB.L — Risk / Return Rank
IBTM.L
CYGB.L
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.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 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.
| IBTM.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.74 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.27 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.61 | 5.03 | -4.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.35 | 11.76 | -10.41 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTM.L drawdown since its inception was -52.39%, 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 IBTM.L and CYGB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBTM.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.39% | -1.56% | -50.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.57% | -0.69% | -4.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.57% | -1.56% | -6.01% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.29% | -1.56% | -14.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.54% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.53% | -0.34% | -21.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.63% | -0.24% | -20.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.52% | 0.29% | +2.23% |
Volatility
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.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 GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) at 0.60%. This indicates that IBTM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CYGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBTM.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.66% | 0.60% | +1.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.59% | 2.24% | +2.35% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.27% | 2.71% | +3.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.39% | 2.38% | +7.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.82% | 2.33% | +7.49% |
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBTM.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CYGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBTM.L vs. CYGB.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.37%, more than CYGB.L's 1.70% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% | 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 CYGB.L have a correlation of -0.07, 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 0.40% for CYGB.L.
IBTM.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CYGB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. IBTM.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 7-10 Year Bond Index, while CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTM.L and 0.40% for CYGB.L.
Find the right allocation for IBTM.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