JEMB vs. EMBX

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

JEMB (Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) and EMBX (VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JEMB returned 8.29% vs 11.28% for EMBX. Their 0.37 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. JEMB charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.76%/yr for EMBX.

Performance

JEMB vs. EMBX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (JEMB) and VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMBX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JEMB achieves a 1.87% return, which is significantly lower than EMBX's 3.80% return.

JEMB

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: -1.41%
• 6M: 1.41%
• YTD: 1.87%
• 1Y: 8.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.78%

EMBX

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: -0.06%
• 6M: 1.53%
• YTD: 3.80%
• 1Y: 11.28%
• 3Y*: 9.06%
• 5Y*: 4.44%
• 10Y*: 4.89%
• ALL TIME*: 3.32%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMBX VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF	$1.66M	$1.74M	$2.17M
JEMB Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	$131.88K	$404.80K	$2.67M

JEMB vs. EMBX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JEMB Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	1.87%	14.63%	0.99%
EMBX VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF	3.80%	18.80%	-1.02%

Correlation

The correlation between JEMB and EMBX is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 14, 2024	0.37

The correlation between JEMB and EMBX shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (all time) to 0.53 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

JEMB vs. EMBX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

JEMB

JEMB Risk / Return Rank: 49
JEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
JEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
JEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 45
JEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
JEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 60

EMBX

EMBX Risk / Return Rank: 79
EMBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EMBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
EMBX Omega Ratio Rank: 85
EMBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
EMBX Martin Ratio Rank: 75

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

JEMB vs. EMBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (JEMB) and VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMBX). 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.

	JEMB	EMBX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	1.98	-0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	2.88	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.37	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.90	2.28	-0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.34	9.30	-1.96

JEMB vs. EMBX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JEMB Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the EMBX Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JEMB and EMBX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

JEMB vs. EMBX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JEMB drawdown since its inception was -5.37%, smaller than the maximum EMBX drawdown of -25.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JEMB and EMBX.

Drawdown Indicators

	JEMB	EMBX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.37%	-25.11%	+19.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.67%	-5.14%	+0.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.86%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.83%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-25.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.89%	-0.78%	-1.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.00%	-7.01%	+6.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.20%	1.26%	-0.06%

Volatility

JEMB vs. EMBX - Volatility Comparison

Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (JEMB) has a higher volatility of 2.07% compared to VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMBX) at 1.34%. This indicates that JEMB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMBX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JEMB	EMBX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.07%	1.34%	+0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.71%	5.06%	+1.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.04%	5.93%	+2.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.43%	6.13%	+2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.43%	6.67%	+1.76%

JEMB vs. EMBX - Expense Ratio Comparison

JEMB has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than EMBX's 0.76% expense ratio.

Dividends

JEMB vs. EMBX - Dividend Comparison

JEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.94%, more than EMBX's 5.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMBX VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF	5.30%	6.95%	8.20%	5.49%	8.21%	5.50%	6.56%	7.89%	7.25%	7.66%	3.94%	6.84%
JEMB Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	6.38%	6.19%	2.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JEMB and EMBX in my portfolio?

JEMB and EMBX have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JEMB or EMBX?

JEMB has higher volatility (2.07%) compared to EMBX (1.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JEMB dropped -5.37% vs EMBX's -25.11%.

Which ETF is better, JEMB or EMBX?

On 1-year performance, EMBX leads with 11.28% vs 8.29% for JEMB. On fees, JEMB is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, EMBX has been the lower-risk option at 1.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JEMB or EMBX?

Over the 1-year period, EMBX has performed better with a 11.28% return vs 8.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JEMB or EMBX?

JEMB is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for EMBX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JEMB or EMBX?

JEMB has the higher dividend yield at 6.38%, compared with 5.30% for EMBX.

What is the main difference between JEMB and EMBX?

They also come from different issuers: Janus Henderson and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for JEMB and 0.76% for EMBX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMBX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.10), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.