IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L
IBTS.L (iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF) and CYGB.L (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (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 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, IBTS.L returned 2.45%/yr vs 5.42%/yr for CYGB.L. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBTS.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CYGB.L.
Performance
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.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 CYGB.L's 3.44% 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%
CYGB.L
- 1D
- -0.17%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- 6M
- 3.08%
- YTD
- 3.44%
- 1Y
- 3.67%
- 3Y*
- 6.63%
- 5Y*
- 5.42%
- 10Y*
- —
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTS.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF | 0.82% | -1.91% | 5.79% | -1.41% | 7.61% | 3.89% |
CYGB.L iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 3.44% | 2.20% | 11.38% | 7.14% | 2.11% | 2.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTS.L and CYGB.L is -0.09, 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 | -0.09 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021 | 0.01 |
The correlation between IBTS.L and CYGB.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.02 (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
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L — Risk / Return Rank
IBTS.L
CYGB.L
IBTS.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 (IBTS.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.
| IBTS.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.85 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.25 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.28 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.67 | 5.28 | -4.61 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.67 | 12.15 | -10.48 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTS.L drawdown since its inception was -23.85%, 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 IBTS.L and CYGB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBTS.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.85% | -1.56% | -22.29% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.51% | -0.69% | -3.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.89% | -1.56% | -7.33% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.29% | -1.56% | -14.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.02% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.36% | -0.17% | -7.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.15% | -0.24% | -10.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.81% | 0.29% | +1.52% |
Volatility
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) has a higher volatility of 1.25% compared to iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) at 0.59%. This indicates that IBTS.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
| IBTS.L | CYGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.25% | 0.59% | +0.66% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.49% | 2.24% | +2.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.05% | 2.72% | +3.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.08% | 2.38% | +5.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.59% | 2.33% | +6.26% |
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBTS.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CYGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBTS.L vs. CYGB.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.99%, 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% |
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 CYGB.L have a correlation of -0.09, 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 0.40% for CYGB.L.
IBTS.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CYGB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. IBTS.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index, while CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTS.L and 0.40% for CYGB.L.
Find the right allocation for IBTS.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