PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IEMB.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IEMB.L is traded in USD, while CSP1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CSP1.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IEMB.L achieves a 1.62% return, which is significantly lower than CSP1.L's 10.28% return. Over the past 10 years, IEMB.L has underperformed CSP1.L with an annualized return of 3.32%, while CSP1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.23% annualized return.


IEMB.L

1D
0.41%
1M
1.01%
YTD
1.62%
6M
2.22%
1Y
11.20%
3Y*
9.72%
5Y*
1.91%
10Y*
3.32%

CSP1.L

1D
0.10%
1M
4.65%
YTD
10.28%
6M
11.29%
1Y
27.90%
3Y*
22.09%
5Y*
13.73%
10Y*
15.23%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IEMB.L
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
1.62%13.71%5.70%10.54%-18.35%-2.28%5.57%16.06%-5.53%9.73%
CSP1.L
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF
10.28%17.63%25.22%26.11%-18.77%29.88%17.14%31.49%-5.65%21.38%

Correlation

The correlation between IEMB.L and CSP1.L is 0.54, 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

0.54

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.45

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.44

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2010

0.38

The correlation between IEMB.L and CSP1.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (all time) to 0.54 (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. CSP1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IEMB.L
IEMB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
IEMB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank

CSP1.L
CSP1.L Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.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 iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.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.


IEMB.LCSP1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.60

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.62

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.44

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.58

3.20

-0.62

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.73

13.82

-3.08

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEMB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is comparable to the CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEMB.L and CSP1.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IEMB.LCSP1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.88

2.48

-0.60

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.21

0.88

-0.66

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.36

0.94

-0.58

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.51

1.00

-0.49

Drawdowns

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEMB.L drawdown since its inception was -32.08%, roughly equal to the maximum CSP1.L drawdown of -33.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEMB.L and CSP1.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IEMB.LCSP1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.08%

-33.51%

+1.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.32%

-8.68%

+4.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.54%

-18.69%

+11.15%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.62%

-25.16%

-3.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.62%

-33.51%

+4.89%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.11%

-0.55%

+0.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.02%

-3.87%

-1.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.04%

2.01%

-0.97%

Volatility

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IEMB.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L) have volatilities of 2.57% and 2.58%, 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


IEMB.LCSP1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.57%

2.58%

-0.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.93%

7.99%

-3.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.95%

11.21%

-5.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.87%

15.68%

-6.81%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.25%

16.12%

-6.87%

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IEMB.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CSP1.L's 0.07% expense ratio.


Dividends

IEMB.L vs. CSP1.L - Dividend Comparison

IEMB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.83%, while CSP1.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CSP1.L
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IEMB.L
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
5.83%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 CSP1.L have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CSP1.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CSP1.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for IEMB.L.

IEMB.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while CSP1.L is S&P 500. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for IEMB.L and 0.07% for CSP1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IEMB.L and CSP1.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