NEMD vs. LEMB

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB).

NEMD and LEMB are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. NEMD is an actively managed fund by Neuberger Berman. It was launched on Sep 27, 2013. 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.

Performance

NEMD vs. LEMB - 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 iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

NEMD vs. LEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	-0.36%	7.07%
LEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF	-1.85%	5.43%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NEMD achieves a -0.36% return, which is significantly higher than LEMB's -1.85% return.

NEMD

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: -3.18%
• YTD: -0.36%
• 6M: 3.76%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LEMB

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: -5.03%
• YTD: -1.85%
• 6M: 1.44%
• 1Y: 11.60%
• 3Y*: 5.53%
• 5Y*: 0.81%
• 10Y*: 1.00%

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

NEMD vs. LEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

NEMD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than LEMB's 0.30% expense ratio.

NEMD

Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF

LEMB

iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF

Return for Risk

NEMD vs. LEMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

LEMB

LEMB Risk / Return Rank: 83
LEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
LEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
LEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
LEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. LEMB - 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 iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (LEMB). 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	LEMB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.10	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.71	0.02	+1.68

Correlation

The correlation between NEMD and LEMB is 0.53, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

NEMD vs. LEMB - Dividend Comparison

NEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.88%, more than LEMB's 2.49% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	3.88%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LEMB iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF	2.49%	2.44%	0.00%	1.34%	0.86%	3.89%	0.00%	4.39%	3.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.64%

Drawdowns

NEMD vs. LEMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NEMD drawdown since its inception was -4.43%, smaller than the maximum LEMB drawdown of -30.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEMD and LEMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	NEMD	LEMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.43%	-30.82%	+26.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-6.00%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-29.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.35%	-7.73%	+4.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.49%	-12.83%	+12.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.40%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	NEMD	LEMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.56%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	4.71%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.30%	6.85%	-0.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.30%	8.19%	-1.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.30%	9.33%	-3.03%