IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L
IBTS.L (iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF) and CNYB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - IBTS.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 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, IBTS.L returned 2.45%/yr vs 3.58%/yr for CNYB.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBTS.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNYB.L.
Performance
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBTS.L achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly lower than CNYB.L's 5.09% return.
IBTS.L
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- -0.22%
- 6M
- 0.40%
- YTD
- 0.82%
- 1Y
- 3.02%
- 3Y*
- 3.29%
- 5Y*
- 2.45%
- 10Y*
- 1.53%
CNYB.L
- 1D
- 0.24%
- 1M
- -0.35%
- 6M
- 4.32%
- YTD
- 5.09%
- 1Y
- 7.12%
- 3Y*
- 4.85%
- 5Y*
- 3.58%
- 10Y*
- —
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTS.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF | 0.82% | -1.91% | 5.79% | -1.41% | 7.61% | 0.64% | -0.34% | -4.60% |
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 5.09% | -2.20% | 6.65% | -4.09% | 6.21% | 9.69% | -19.80% | 0.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTS.L and CNYB.L is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2019 | 0.64 |
The correlation between IBTS.L and CNYB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.82 (1 year), 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
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L — Risk / Return Rank
IBTS.L
CNYB.L
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.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.
| IBTS.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.63 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.21 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.67 | 2.58 | -1.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.67 | 6.11 | -4.44 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTS.L drawdown since its inception was -23.85%, smaller than the maximum CNYB.L drawdown of -25.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTS.L and CNYB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBTS.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.85% | -25.82% | +1.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.51% | -2.75% | -1.76% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.89% | -9.03% | +0.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.29% | -15.44% | -0.85% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.02% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.36% | -7.24% | -0.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.15% | -12.52% | +1.37% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.81% | 1.16% | +0.65% |
Volatility
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CNYB.L) have volatilities of 1.25% and 1.24%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBTS.L | CNYB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.25% | 1.24% | +0.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.49% | 4.69% | -0.20% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.05% | 6.29% | -0.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.08% | 7.65% | +0.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.59% | 11.47% | -2.88% |
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBTS.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CNYB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBTS.L vs. CNYB.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.99%, more than CNYB.L's 1.72% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.72% | 1.89% | 2.24% | 2.55% | 2.72% | 2.74% | 2.65% | 0.72% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBTS.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF | 3.99% | 4.22% | 4.12% | 3.08% | 0.75% | 0.61% | 1.84% | 2.39% | 1.49% | 1.01% | 0.67% | 0.49% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBTS.L and CNYB.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBTS.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBTS.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNYB.L.
IBTS.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CNYB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. IBTS.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index, while CNYB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTS.L and 0.35% for CNYB.L.
Find the right allocation for IBTS.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