LEMB vs. EBND
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND).
LEMB and EBND are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LEMB is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global 15 cap 4.5 floor. It was launched on Oct 18, 2011. EBND is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg Emerging Market Local Currency Government Diversified. It was launched on Feb 23, 2011. Both LEMB and EBND are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: LEMB or EBND.
Key characteristics
| LEMB | EBND | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -1.82% | -3.07% |
| 1Y Return | 0.43% | 0.83% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -4.01% | -3.95% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -1.81% | -1.01% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | -1.40% | -1.03% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.09 | 0.13 |
| Daily Std Dev | 7.22% | 8.45% |
| Max Drawdown | -28.42% | -29.57% |
| Current Drawdown | -17.66% | -16.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between LEMB and EBND is 0.80, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
LEMB vs. EBND - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, LEMB achieves a -1.82% return, which is significantly higher than EBND's -3.07% return. Over the past 10 years, LEMB has underperformed EBND with an annualized return of -1.40%, while EBND has yielded a comparatively higher -1.03% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LEMB vs. EBND - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both LEMB and EBND have an expense ratio of 0.30%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
LEMB vs. EBND - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND). 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.
Dividends
LEMB vs. EBND - Dividend Comparison
LEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.36%, less than EBND's 5.56% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF | 1.36% | 1.34% | 0.86% | 3.89% | 0.00% | 4.39% | 6.91% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.64% | 2.85% | 2.99% |
EBND SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF | 5.56% | 5.27% | 4.60% | 3.83% | 3.67% | 4.68% | 4.70% | 2.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.24% | 2.31% |
Drawdowns
LEMB vs. EBND - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LEMB drawdown since its inception was -28.42%, roughly equal to the maximum EBND drawdown of -29.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEMB and EBND. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
LEMB vs. EBND - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) is 2.44%, while SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) has a volatility of 2.80%. This indicates that LEMB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EBND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.