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

Performance

IEMB.L vs. DRGN.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 L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IEMB.L achieves a 1.62% return, which is significantly lower than DRGN.L's 4.62% 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%

DRGN.L

1D
-0.08%
1M
1.37%
YTD
4.62%
6M
6.29%
1Y
8.23%
3Y*
4.99%
5Y*
2.26%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
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%1.68%
DRGN.L
L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF
4.62%5.43%3.15%0.46%-5.32%7.15%0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between IEMB.L and DRGN.L is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.41

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

0.28

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

0.33

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2020

0.33

The correlation between IEMB.L and DRGN.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (3 years) to 0.41 (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. DRGN.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

DRGN.L
DRGN.L Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
DRGN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DRGN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
DRGN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
DRGN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
DRGN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
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. DRGN.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 L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.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.LDRGN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.56

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.58

5.58

-3.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.73

22.51

-11.78

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

The current IEMB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is comparable to the DRGN.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEMB.L and DRGN.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.LDRGN.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.88

2.45

-0.56

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.21

0.49

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.36

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.51

0.64

-0.14

Drawdowns

IEMB.L vs. DRGN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEMB.L drawdown since its inception was -32.08%, which is greater than DRGN.L's maximum drawdown of -11.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEMB.L and DRGN.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IEMB.LDRGN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.08%

-11.71%

-20.37%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.32%

-1.47%

-2.85%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.54%

-3.49%

-4.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.62%

-11.71%

-16.91%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.11%

-0.30%

+0.19%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.02%

-3.61%

-1.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.04%

0.36%

+0.68%

Volatility

IEMB.L vs. DRGN.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IEMB.L) has a higher volatility of 2.57% compared to L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF (DRGN.L) at 1.21%. This indicates that IEMB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DRGN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IEMB.LDRGN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.57%

1.21%

+1.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.93%

3.00%

+1.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.95%

3.36%

+2.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.87%

4.58%

+4.29%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.25%

4.53%

+4.72%

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

IEMB.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than DRGN.L's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

IEMB.L vs. DRGN.L - Dividend Comparison

IEMB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.83%, more than DRGN.L's 1.63% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
DRGN.L
L&G China CNY Bond UCITS ETF
1.63%1.94%2.31%2.45%2.76%1.44%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 DRGN.L have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, DRGN.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

DRGN.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for IEMB.L.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for IEMB.L and 0.30% for DRGN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IEMB.L and DRGN.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