PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE
PPFB.DE (iShares Physical Gold ETC) and CEMF.DE (iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - PPFB.DE is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while CEMF.DE is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE US Treasury 7-10 Year (EUR Hedged) Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PPFB.DE charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CEMF.DE.
Performance
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PPFB.DE achieves a 2.74% return, which is significantly higher than CEMF.DE's -1.42% return.
PPFB.DE
- 1D
- 0.61%
- 1M
- -4.00%
- YTD
- 2.74%
- 6M
- 5.47%
- 1Y
- 31.35%
- 3Y*
- 28.05%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CEMF.DE
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- 0.27%
- YTD
- -1.42%
- 6M
- -0.94%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PPFB.DE iShares Physical Gold ETC | 2.74% | 31.14% |
CEMF.DE iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc | -1.42% | 2.99% |
Correlation
The correlation between PPFB.DE and CEMF.DE is 0.17, 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 Jul 29, 2025 | 0.17 |
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
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE — Risk / Return Rank
PPFB.DE
CEMF.DE
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE) and iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc (CEMF.DE). 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.
| PPFB.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.81 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.60 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PPFB.DE drawdown since its inception was -16.60%, which is greater than CEMF.DE's maximum drawdown of -4.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PPFB.DE and CEMF.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PPFB.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.60% | -4.45% | -12.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.60% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.60% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.00% | -2.97% | -12.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.42% | -1.19% | -3.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.55% | — | — |
Volatility
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PPFB.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.11% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.18% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.12% | 4.63% | +18.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.13% | 4.63% | +11.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.13% | 4.63% | +11.50% |
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
PPFB.DE has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is higher than CEMF.DE's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
PPFB.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither PPFB.DE nor CEMF.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PPFB.DE and CEMF.DE have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CEMF.DE is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CEMF.DE is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for PPFB.DE.
PPFB.DE is categorized as Precious Metals, while CEMF.DE is Government Bonds. PPFB.DE tracks Gold, while CEMF.DE tracks ICE US Treasury 7-10 Year (EUR Hedged) Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for PPFB.DE and 0.10% for CEMF.DE.
Find the right allocation for PPFB.DE and CEMF.DE
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