NEMD vs. CBON

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NEMD (Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) and CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. NEMD is actively managed, while CBON is passively managed. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NEMD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CBON.

Performance

NEMD vs. CBON - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NEMD achieves a 4.12% return, which is significantly lower than CBON's 5.41% return.

NEMD

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 1.38%
• YTD: 4.12%
• 6M: 4.49%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CBON

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 5.41%
• 6M: 7.03%
• 1Y: 8.97%
• 3Y*: 5.00%
• 5Y*: 2.03%
• 10Y*: 2.92%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NEMD vs. CBON - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	4.12%	7.07%
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	5.41%	3.28%

Correlation

The correlation between NEMD and CBON is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 12, 2025	0.30

NEMD vs. CBON - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NEMD	CBON
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	100.0%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NEMD vs. CBON — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CBON

CBON Risk / Return Rank: 89
CBON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
CBON Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
CBON Omega Ratio Rank: 87
CBON Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CBON Martin Ratio Rank: 93

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

NEMD vs. CBON - 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 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NEMD	CBON	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.41	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.20	0.42	+1.78

Drawdowns

NEMD vs. CBON - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NEMD drawdown since its inception was -4.43%, smaller than the maximum CBON drawdown of -14.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEMD and CBON.

Drawdown Indicators

	NEMD	CBON	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.43%	-14.13%	+9.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-1.34%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-4.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-14.13%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.02%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.57%	-3.99%	+3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.36%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	NEMD	CBON	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.91%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	2.62%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.51%	3.45%	+3.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.51%	4.92%	+1.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.51%	5.58%	+0.93%

NEMD vs. CBON - Expense Ratio Comparison

NEMD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CBON's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

NEMD vs. CBON - Dividend Comparison

NEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.71%, more than CBON's 1.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	1.52%	1.66%	2.15%	3.01%	2.70%	3.05%	2.87%	3.87%	3.39%	3.33%	3.25%	2.78%
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	4.71%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NEMD and CBON in my portfolio?

NEMD and CBON have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, NEMD or CBON?

On fees, CBON is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, NEMD or CBON?

CBON is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for NEMD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NEMD or CBON?

NEMD has the higher dividend yield at 4.71%, compared with 1.52% for CBON.

What is the main difference between NEMD and CBON?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for NEMD and 0.50% for CBON.