IEMB.L vs. CBND.L
IEMB.L (iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - IEMB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund managed by iShares, while CBND.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. Over the past 5 years, IEMB.L returned 1.75%/yr vs 2.85%/yr for CBND.L. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IEMB.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for CBND.L.
Performance
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IEMB.L achieves a 1.65% return, which is significantly lower than CBND.L's 4.87% return.
IEMB.L
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -0.61%
- 6M
- 1.98%
- YTD
- 1.65%
- 1Y
- 10.02%
- 3Y*
- 8.70%
- 5Y*
- 1.75%
- 10Y*
- 2.92%
CBND.L
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- 0.02%
- 6M
- 4.64%
- YTD
- 4.87%
- 1Y
- 7.44%
- 3Y*
- 5.57%
- 5Y*
- 2.85%
- 10Y*
- —
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEMB.L iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.65% | 13.71% | 5.70% | 10.54% | -18.35% | -2.28% | 5.57% | 2.51% |
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 4.87% | 5.04% | 4.67% | 1.28% | -5.17% | 7.61% | 8.70% | 3.08% |
Correlation
The correlation between IEMB.L and CBND.L is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019 | 0.29 |
The correlation between IEMB.L and CBND.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (3 years) to 0.43 (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
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L — Risk / Return Rank
IEMB.L
CBND.L
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IEMB.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.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.
| IEMB.L | CBND.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.33 | 1.47 | -0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.31 | 7.45 | -5.14 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.59 | 18.48 | -8.89 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IEMB.L drawdown since its inception was -31.65%, which is greater than CBND.L's maximum drawdown of -11.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEMB.L and CBND.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IEMB.L | CBND.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.65% | -11.48% | -20.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.32% | -0.99% | -3.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.54% | -3.66% | -3.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.62% | -11.48% | -17.14% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.62% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.73% | -0.21% | -0.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.96% | -2.80% | -2.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.04% | 0.40% | +0.64% |
Volatility
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IEMB.L) has a higher volatility of 1.10% compared to Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) at 0.89%. This indicates that IEMB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBND.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IEMB.L | CBND.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.10% | 0.89% | +0.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.03% | 2.58% | +2.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.89% | 3.11% | +2.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.89% | 5.02% | +3.87% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.24% | 4.94% | +4.30% |
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IEMB.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CBND.L's 0.24% expense ratio.
Dividends
IEMB.L vs. CBND.L - Dividend Comparison
IEMB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.77%, more than CBND.L's 2.04% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 2.04% | 2.20% | 2.45% | 2.54% | 2.72% | 2.52% | 1.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IEMB.L iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 5.77% | 5.85% | 5.80% | 5.65% | 5.55% | 3.95% | 3.86% | 4.73% | 4.82% | 4.79% | 5.57% | 4.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IEMB.L and CBND.L have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CBND.L is cheaper at 0.24% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CBND.L is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for IEMB.L.
IEMB.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while CBND.L is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for IEMB.L and 0.24% for CBND.L.
Find the right allocation for IEMB.L and CBND.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