NEMD vs. BIL
NEMD (Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NEMD is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. NEMD is actively managed, while BIL is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. NEMD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.
Performance
NEMD vs. BIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NEMD achieves a 3.51% return, which is significantly higher than BIL's 1.67% return.
NEMD
- 1D
- -1.20%
- 1M
- 1.02%
- YTD
- 3.51%
- 6M
- 3.55%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BIL
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 1.67%
- 6M
- 1.76%
- 1Y
- 3.84%
- 3Y*
- 4.60%
- 5Y*
- 3.45%
- 10Y*
- 2.20%
NEMD vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF | 3.51% | 7.10% |
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 1.67% | 1.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between NEMD and BIL is -0.16, 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 Aug 11, 2025 | -0.16 |
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
NEMD vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank
NEMD
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BIL
NEMD vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.
| NEMD | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 87.16 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 352.24 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 2,793.11 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NEMD vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NEMD drawdown since its inception was -4.43%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEMD and BIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NEMD | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.43% | -0.78% | -3.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -0.01% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -0.01% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -0.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -0.21% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.31% | 0.00% | -1.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.56% | -0.26% | -0.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.00% | — |
Volatility
NEMD vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NEMD | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.07% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 0.14% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.65% | 0.20% | +6.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.65% | 0.26% | +6.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.65% | 0.26% | +6.39% |
NEMD vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
NEMD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.
Dividends
NEMD vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison
NEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.74%, more than BIL's 3.85% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 3.85% | 4.13% | 5.03% | 4.92% | 1.35% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 2.05% | 1.66% | 0.68% | 0.07% |
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF | 4.74% | 2.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NEMD and BIL have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for NEMD.
NEMD has the higher dividend yield at 4.74%, compared with 3.85% for BIL.
NEMD is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while BIL is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for NEMD and 0.14% for BIL.
Find the right allocation for NEMD and BIL
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