LEMB vs. IGOV
LEMB (iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF) and IGOV (iShares International Treasury Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LEMB is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global 15 cap 4.5 floor, while IGOV is a International Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE World Government Bond Index - Developed Markets Capped Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LEMB returned 1.01%/yr vs -1.52%/yr for IGOV. Their 0.49 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LEMB charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IGOV.
Performance
LEMB vs. IGOV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LEMB achieves a 2.60% return, which is significantly higher than IGOV's -1.01% return. Over the past 10 years, LEMB has outperformed IGOV with an annualized return of 1.01%, while IGOV has yielded a comparatively lower -1.52% 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%
IGOV
- 1D
- 0.56%
- 1M
- 0.49%
- 6M
- -2.32%
- YTD
- -1.01%
- 1Y
- -0.71%
- 3Y*
- 2.17%
- 5Y*
- -4.55%
- 10Y*
- -1.52%
- ALL TIME*
- 0.14%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $8.97M | $15.96M | $16.64M | |
| $8.99M | $7.31M | $6.57M |
LEMB vs. IGOV - 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% |
IGOV iShares International Treasury Bond ETF | -1.01% | 9.96% | -6.50% | 5.57% | -22.07% | -9.25% | 10.88% | 3.76% | -2.60% | 11.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between LEMB and IGOV is 0.72, 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. | 0.72 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.70 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.70 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.58 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2011 | 0.49 |
Over the past year, LEMB and IGOV have become more correlated (0.72) than their long-term average of 0.49, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. IGOV — Risk / Return Rank
LEMB
IGOV
LEMB vs. IGOV - 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 iShares International Treasury Bond ETF (IGOV). 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 | IGOV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.94 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 0.99 | +0.26 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.45 | -0.12 | +1.57 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.65 | -0.25 | +4.90 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LEMB vs. IGOV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LEMB drawdown since its inception was -30.82%, smaller than the maximum IGOV drawdown of -35.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEMB and IGOV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LEMB | IGOV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.82% | -35.88% | +5.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.00% | -6.14% | +0.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.08% | -10.65% | +2.57% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.89% | -32.80% | +8.91% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -29.09% | -35.88% | +6.79% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.54% | -24.39% | +20.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.64% | -11.14% | -1.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.87% | 2.89% | -1.02% |
Volatility
LEMB vs. IGOV - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB) is 1.44%, while iShares International Treasury Bond ETF (IGOV) has a volatility of 2.02%. This indicates that LEMB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IGOV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LEMB | IGOV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.44% | 2.02% | -0.58% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.62% | 6.26% | -0.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.59% | 7.83% | -1.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.25% | 9.99% | -1.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.16% | 8.59% | +0.57% |
LEMB vs. IGOV - Expense Ratio Comparison
LEMB has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than IGOV's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
LEMB vs. IGOV - Dividend Comparison
LEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.38%, more than IGOV's 1.42% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGOV iShares International Treasury Bond ETF | 1.42% | 1.41% | 0.59% | 0.00% | 0.11% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.24% | 0.31% | 0.19% | 0.69% | 0.12% |
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 IGOV have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IGOV has higher volatility (2.02%) compared to LEMB (1.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LEMB dropped -30.82% vs IGOV's -35.88%.
On 10-year performance, LEMB leads with 1.01% vs -1.52% for IGOV. On fees, LEMB is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, LEMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, LEMB has performed better with a 1.01% return vs -1.52%. 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 0.35% for IGOV.
LEMB has the higher dividend yield at 2.38%, compared with 1.42% for IGOV.
LEMB is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while IGOV is International Government Bonds. LEMB tracks J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global 15 cap 4.5 floor, while IGOV tracks FTSE World Government Bond Index - Developed Markets Capped Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for LEMB and 0.35% for IGOV.
LEMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 vs -0.09), 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 IGOV
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