LEMB vs. CBON
LEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF) and CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - LEMB tracks the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global 15 cap 4.5 floor while CBON tracks the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LEMB returned 1.01%/yr vs 2.95%/yr for CBON. Their 0.33 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LEMB charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CBON.
Performance
LEMB vs. CBON - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LEMB achieves a 2.60% return, which is significantly lower than CBON's 5.40% return. Over the past 10 years, LEMB has underperformed CBON with an annualized return of 1.01%, while CBON has yielded a comparatively higher 2.95% annualized return.
LEMB
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 0.59%
- YTD
- 2.60%
- 1Y
- 8.68%
- 3Y*
- 6.08%
- 5Y*
- 1.35%
- 10Y*
- 1.01%
- ALL TIME*
- 0.52%
CBON
- 1D
- -0.18%
- 1M
- 0.02%
- 6M
- 4.35%
- YTD
- 5.40%
- 1Y
- 8.99%
- 3Y*
- 4.96%
- 5Y*
- 2.06%
- 10Y*
- 2.95%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.44%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $139.52K | $165.40K | $183.38K | |
| $8.99M | $7.31M | $6.57M |
LEMB vs. CBON - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 2.60% | 18.02% | -1.72% | 7.23% | -10.74% | -9.92% | 3.10% | 6.40% | -7.49% | 12.49% |
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.40% | 5.46% | 1.85% | 2.92% | -7.99% | 5.93% | 12.01% | 2.67% | 1.88% | 6.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between LEMB and CBON is 0.37, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.46 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.45 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2014 | 0.33 |
The correlation between LEMB and CBON shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (all time) to 0.46 (3 years), 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
LEMB vs. CBON — Risk / Return Rank
LEMB
CBON
LEMB vs. CBON - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). 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.
| LEMB | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.19 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.98 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.49 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.45 | 6.74 | -5.28 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.65 | 26.07 | -21.42 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LEMB vs. CBON - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LEMB drawdown since its inception was -30.82%, which is greater than CBON's maximum drawdown of -14.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEMB and CBON.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LEMB | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.82% | -14.13% | -16.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.00% | -1.34% | -4.66% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.08% | -4.56% | -3.52% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.89% | -14.13% | -9.76% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -29.09% | -14.13% | -14.96% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.54% | -0.23% | -3.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.64% | -3.94% | -8.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.87% | 0.35% | +1.52% |
Volatility
LEMB vs. CBON - Volatility Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) has a higher volatility of 1.44% compared to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) at 1.13%. This indicates that LEMB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBON based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LEMB | CBON | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.44% | 1.13% | +0.31% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.62% | 2.77% | +2.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.59% | 3.59% | +3.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.25% | 4.87% | +3.38% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.16% | 5.55% | +3.61% |
LEMB vs. CBON - Expense Ratio Comparison
LEMB has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CBON's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
LEMB vs. CBON - Dividend Comparison
LEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.38%, more than CBON's 1.48% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 1.48% | 1.66% | 2.15% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.87% | 3.87% | 3.39% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% |
LEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 2.38% | 2.44% | 0.00% | 1.34% | 0.86% | 3.89% | 0.00% | 4.39% | 3.46% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LEMB and CBON have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LEMB has higher volatility (1.44%) compared to CBON (1.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LEMB dropped -30.82% vs CBON's -14.13%.
On 10-year performance, CBON leads with 2.95% vs 1.01% for LEMB. On fees, LEMB is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 1.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CBON has performed better with a 2.95% return vs 1.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LEMB is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CBON.
LEMB has the higher dividend yield at 2.38%, compared with 1.48% for CBON.
LEMB tracks J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global 15 cap 4.5 floor, while CBON tracks ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for LEMB and 0.50% for CBON.
CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.52 vs 1.33), 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 LEMB and CBON
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