KHYB vs. EMHC
KHYB (KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF) and EMHC (SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - KHYB tracks the JP Morgan Asia Credit Index Non-Investment Grade Corporate Index. while EMHC tracks the Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, KHYB returned 0.17%/yr vs 1.55%/yr for EMHC. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. KHYB charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for EMHC.
Performance
KHYB vs. EMHC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KHYB achieves a 2.50% return, which is significantly higher than EMHC's 1.57% return.
KHYB
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 1.41%
- YTD
- 2.50%
- 6M
- 3.54%
- 1Y
- 10.54%
- 3Y*
- 9.02%
- 5Y*
- 0.17%
- 10Y*
- —
EMHC
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- 1.13%
- YTD
- 1.57%
- 6M
- 1.74%
- 1Y
- 11.54%
- 3Y*
- 8.74%
- 5Y*
- 1.55%
- 10Y*
- —
KHYB vs. EMHC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KHYB KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF | 2.50% | 9.59% | 10.79% | 3.50% | -10.15% | -12.63% |
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF | 1.57% | 14.07% | 3.52% | 10.06% | -17.75% | 1.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between KHYB and EMHC 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 | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021 | 0.38 |
The correlation between KHYB and EMHC shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (all time) to 0.54 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
KHYB vs. EMHC - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
KHYB
EMHC
Consumer Defensive
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Consumer Defensive
KHYB
EMHC
-
Basic Materials
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Communication Services
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Consumer Cyclical
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Energy
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Financial Services
KHYB
-
EMHC
Healthcare
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Industrials
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Real Estate
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Technology
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
Utilities
KHYB
-
EMHC
-
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
KHYB vs. EMHC — Risk / Return Rank
KHYB
EMHC
KHYB vs. EMHC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB) and SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC). 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.
| KHYB | EMHC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.97 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.71 | 1.41 | +0.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.67 | 2.65 | +0.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.98 | 11.09 | +0.89 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| KHYB | EMHC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.11 | 2.14 | +0.97 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.03 | 0.17 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.28 | 0.22 | +0.06 |
Drawdowns
KHYB vs. EMHC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum KHYB drawdown since its inception was -33.63%, which is greater than EMHC's maximum drawdown of -28.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KHYB and EMHC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KHYB | EMHC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.63% | -28.03% | -5.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.97% | -4.37% | +0.40% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.94% | -7.67% | +1.73% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.86% | -28.03% | -4.83% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.62% | -0.32% | -0.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.71% | -9.91% | +0.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.88% | 1.04% | -0.16% |
Volatility
KHYB vs. EMHC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF (KHYB) is 0.90%, while SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) has a volatility of 1.89%. This indicates that KHYB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMHC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KHYB | EMHC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.90% | 1.89% | -0.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.02% | 4.16% | -1.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.40% | 5.43% | -2.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.32% | 9.06% | -2.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.71% | 8.96% | -3.25% |
KHYB vs. EMHC - Expense Ratio Comparison
KHYB has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than EMHC's 0.23% expense ratio.
Dividends
KHYB vs. EMHC - Dividend Comparison
KHYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.13%, more than EMHC's 6.11% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF | 6.11% | 6.16% | 5.95% | 5.12% | 5.11% | 2.97% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KHYB KraneShares Asia Pacific High Income Bond ETF | 8.13% | 7.59% | 10.11% | 15.55% | 9.67% | 6.22% | 4.76% | 4.86% | 2.56% |
Frequently Asked Questions
KHYB and EMHC 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.
EMHC has higher volatility (1.89%) compared to KHYB (0.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KHYB dropped -33.63% vs EMHC's -28.03%.
On 5-year performance, EMHC leads with 1.55% vs 0.17% for KHYB. On fees, EMHC is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, KHYB has been the lower-risk option at 0.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, EMHC has performed better with a 1.55% return vs 0.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMHC is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for KHYB.
KHYB has the higher dividend yield at 8.13%, compared with 6.11% for EMHC.
KHYB tracks JP Morgan Asia Credit Index Non-Investment Grade Corporate Index., while EMHC tracks Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net. They also come from different issuers: KraneShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for KHYB and 0.23% for EMHC.
KHYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.11 vs 2.14), 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.
Find the right allocation for KHYB and EMHC
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