SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE
SNA2.DE (iShares USD Treasury Bond UCITS ETF USD Dist) and CEMF.DE (iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc) are both Government Bonds funds from iShares - SNA2.DE tracks the ICE US Treasury Core Bond while CEMF.DE tracks 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. SNA2.DE charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CEMF.DE.
Performance
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SNA2.DE achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly higher than CEMF.DE's -1.42% return.
SNA2.DE
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.91%
- YTD
- 0.82%
- 6M
- 0.08%
- 1Y
- 1.09%
- 3Y*
- -0.30%
- 5Y*
- 0.24%
- 10Y*
- —
CEMF.DE
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- -0.19%
- YTD
- -1.42%
- 6M
- -1.51%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
SNA2.DE iShares USD Treasury Bond UCITS ETF USD Dist | 0.82% | 0.51% |
CEMF.DE iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc | -1.42% | 2.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between SNA2.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 30, 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
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE — Risk / Return Rank
SNA2.DE
CEMF.DE
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond UCITS ETF USD Dist (SNA2.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.
| SNA2.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.27 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.65 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SNA2.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.03 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.12 | 0.29 | -0.41 |
Drawdowns
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SNA2.DE drawdown since its inception was -17.70%, 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 SNA2.DE and CEMF.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SNA2.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.70% | -4.45% | -13.25% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.97% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.19% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.01% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.15% | -2.97% | -11.18% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.16% | -1.20% | -9.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.69% | — | — |
Volatility
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SNA2.DE | CEMF.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.96% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.78% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.49% | 4.62% | +0.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.06% | 4.62% | +3.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.95% | 4.62% | +3.33% |
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
SNA2.DE has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CEMF.DE's 0.10% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
SNA2.DE vs. CEMF.DE - Dividend Comparison
SNA2.DE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, while CEMF.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEMF.DE iShares $ Treasury Bond 7-10yr UCITS ETF EUR Hedged Acc | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SNA2.DE iShares USD Treasury Bond UCITS ETF USD Dist | 3.50% | 3.74% | 3.48% | 3.07% | 1.40% | 0.72% | 1.32% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SNA2.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, SNA2.DE is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SNA2.DE is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.10% for CEMF.DE.
SNA2.DE tracks ICE US Treasury Core Bond, while CEMF.DE tracks ICE US Treasury 7-10 Year (EUR Hedged) Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for SNA2.DE and 0.10% for CEMF.DE.
Find the right allocation for SNA2.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