PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg 7-10 Year US Treasury Bond UCITS ETF (TRSX.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

TRSX.L is traded in USD, while CYGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the CYGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TRSX.L achieves a -1.31% return, which is significantly lower than CYGB.L's 3.39% return.


TRSX.L

1D
-0.35%
1M
-0.85%
6M
-0.71%
YTD
-1.31%
1Y
3.20%
3Y*
2.63%
5Y*
-1.40%
10Y*
0.52%

CYGB.L

1D
-0.38%
1M
1.67%
6M
3.64%
YTD
3.39%
1Y
3.93%
3Y*
7.75%
5Y*
4.95%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
TRSX.L
SPDR Bloomberg 7-10 Year US Treasury Bond UCITS ETF
-1.31%8.40%-0.27%3.37%-15.02%-0.37%
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
3.39%9.91%9.53%12.79%-8.81%-1.56%

Correlation

The correlation between TRSX.L and CYGB.L is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.26

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.22

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021

0.21

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

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRSX.L
TRSX.L Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
TRSX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TRSX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
TRSX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
TRSX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
TRSX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank

CYGB.L
CYGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
CYGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg 7-10 Year US Treasury Bond UCITS ETF (TRSX.L) and iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L). 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.


TRSX.LCYGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.09

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.76

0.97

-0.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.04

2.20

-0.16

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TRSX.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is comparable to the CYGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TRSX.L and CYGB.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TRSX.L drawdown since its inception was -23.62%, which is greater than CYGB.L's maximum drawdown of -22.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TRSX.L and CYGB.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TRSX.LCYGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.62%

-22.10%

-1.52%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.05%

-4.04%

-0.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.08%

-6.48%

-0.60%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.08%

-21.63%

+0.55%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.25%

-0.67%

-10.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.81%

-4.36%

-4.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.51%

1.78%

-0.27%

Volatility

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg 7-10 Year US Treasury Bond UCITS ETF (TRSX.L) is 1.21%, while iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (CYGB.L) has a volatility of 1.86%. This indicates that TRSX.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CYGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TRSX.LCYGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.21%

1.86%

-0.65%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.42%

5.73%

-2.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.53%

7.40%

-2.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.44%

8.87%

-1.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.31%

8.74%

-2.43%

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

TRSX.L has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than CYGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

TRSX.L vs. CYGB.L - Dividend Comparison

TRSX.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.11%, more than CYGB.L's 1.70% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
CYGB.L
iShares China CNY Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
1.70%1.84%2.13%2.38%2.68%2.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
TRSX.L
SPDR Bloomberg 7-10 Year US Treasury Bond UCITS ETF
4.11%3.90%3.57%2.71%1.65%1.02%1.56%2.34%2.07%1.88%0.74%

Frequently Asked Questions


TRSX.L and CYGB.L have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, TRSX.L is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

TRSX.L is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CYGB.L.

TRSX.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CYGB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. TRSX.L tracks Bloomberg US 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Index, while CYGB.L tracks Bloomberg China Treasury + Policy Bank Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for TRSX.L and 0.40% for CYGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for TRSX.L and CYGB.L

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