PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS
PPFB.DE (iShares Physical Gold ETC) and CYBE.AS (iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - PPFB.DE is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while CYBE.AS is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PPFB.DE returned 28.05%/yr vs 4.94%/yr for CYBE.AS. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PPFB.DE charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CYBE.AS.
Performance
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - 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 CYBE.AS's 1.67% return.
PPFB.DE
- 1D
- 0.61%
- 1M
- -4.00%
- YTD
- 2.74%
- 6M
- 5.47%
- 1Y
- 31.35%
- 3Y*
- 28.05%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CYBE.AS
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- 0.16%
- YTD
- 1.67%
- 6M
- 1.84%
- 1Y
- 1.50%
- 3Y*
- 4.94%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PPFB.DE iShares Physical Gold ETC | 2.74% | 49.11% | 34.17% | 9.42% | 7.03% | 3.63% |
CYBE.AS iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc | 1.67% | 0.17% | 10.33% | 5.57% | 0.42% | 0.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between PPFB.DE and CYBE.AS is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.04 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2021 | 0.02 |
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. CYBE.AS — Risk / Return Rank
PPFB.DE
CYBE.AS
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc (CYBE.AS). 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 | CYBE.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.85 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.08 | +0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.81 | 1.28 | +0.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.60 | 2.52 | +2.08 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PPFB.DE drawdown since its inception was -16.60%, which is greater than CYBE.AS's maximum drawdown of -1.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PPFB.DE and CYBE.AS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PPFB.DE | CYBE.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.60% | -1.83% | -14.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.60% | -1.16% | -15.44% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.60% | -1.83% | -14.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.00% | -0.70% | -14.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.42% | -0.44% | -3.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.55% | 0.59% | +5.96% |
Volatility
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - Volatility Comparison
iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE) has a higher volatility of 5.11% compared to iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc (CYBE.AS) at 1.42%. This indicates that PPFB.DE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CYBE.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PPFB.DE | CYBE.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.11% | 1.42% | +3.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.18% | 2.75% | +17.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.12% | 3.31% | +19.81% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.13% | 2.71% | +13.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.13% | 2.71% | +13.42% |
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison
PPFB.DE has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CYBE.AS's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
PPFB.DE vs. CYBE.AS - Dividend Comparison
Neither PPFB.DE nor CYBE.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PPFB.DE and CYBE.AS have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, PPFB.DE is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
PPFB.DE is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CYBE.AS.
PPFB.DE is categorized as Precious Metals, while CYBE.AS is Emerging Markets Bonds. PPFB.DE tracks Gold, while CYBE.AS tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for PPFB.DE and 0.40% for CYBE.AS.
Find the right allocation for PPFB.DE and CYBE.AS
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