LNGX vs. EMBX
LNGX (Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF) and EMBX (VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LNGX is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Global X U.S. Natural Gas Index, while EMBX is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by VanEck. LNGX is passively managed, while EMBX is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.31, they often move in opposite directions. LNGX charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.76%/yr for EMBX.
Performance
LNGX vs. EMBX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LNGX achieves a 14.75% return, which is significantly higher than EMBX's 3.35% return.
LNGX
- 1D
- 0.55%
- 1M
- -7.91%
- YTD
- 14.75%
- 6M
- 14.52%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMBX
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- 0.67%
- YTD
- 3.35%
- 6M
- 3.36%
- 1Y
- 13.12%
- 3Y*
- 9.29%
- 5Y*
- 4.09%
- 10Y*
- 5.08%
LNGX vs. EMBX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LNGX Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF | 14.75% | 5.29% |
EMBX VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 3.35% | 1.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between LNGX and EMBX is -0.31, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2025 | -0.31 |
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
LNGX vs. EMBX — Risk / Return Rank
LNGX
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
EMBX
LNGX vs. EMBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF (LNGX) 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.
| LNGX | EMBX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.42 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.56 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 10.74 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LNGX vs. EMBX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LNGX drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum EMBX drawdown of -25.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LNGX and EMBX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LNGX | EMBX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.71% | -25.11% | +7.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.14% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -7.41% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -23.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -25.11% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.56% | -1.21% | -14.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.16% | -7.05% | +1.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.22% | — |
Volatility
LNGX vs. EMBX - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LNGX | EMBX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.08% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 5.08% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.89% | 5.97% | +18.92% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.89% | 6.14% | +18.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.89% | 6.67% | +18.22% |
LNGX vs. EMBX - Expense Ratio Comparison
LNGX has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than EMBX's 0.76% expense ratio.
Dividends
LNGX vs. EMBX - Dividend Comparison
LNGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, less than EMBX's 5.92% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMBX VanEck Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 5.92% | 6.95% | 8.20% | 5.49% | 8.21% | 5.50% | 6.56% | 7.89% | 7.25% | 7.66% | 3.94% | 6.84% |
LNGX Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF | 0.23% | 0.27% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LNGX and EMBX have a correlation of -0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, LNGX is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LNGX is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for EMBX.
EMBX has the higher dividend yield at 5.92%, compared with 0.23% for LNGX.
LNGX is categorized as Energy Equities, while EMBX is Emerging Markets Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Global X and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LNGX and 0.76% for EMBX.
Find the right allocation for LNGX and EMBX
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