PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
UNL vs. BEMB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

UNL vs. BEMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL) and Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UNL achieves a -11.00% return, which is significantly lower than BEMB's 1.27% return.


UNL

1D
1.21%
1M
-1.96%
YTD
-11.00%
6M
-23.47%
1Y
-28.37%
3Y*
-14.70%
5Y*
-5.77%
10Y*
-3.81%

BEMB

1D
-0.34%
1M
0.94%
YTD
1.27%
6M
1.64%
1Y
9.77%
3Y*
8.80%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UNL vs. BEMB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
UNL
United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP
-11.00%-9.67%-4.78%-32.76%
BEMB
Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
1.27%12.27%5.51%8.88%

Correlation

The correlation between UNL and BEMB is -0.28, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


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

-0.28

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

-0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2023

-0.09

The correlation between UNL and BEMB shifts across timeframes, from -0.28 (1 year) to -0.08 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

UNL vs. BEMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

UNL
UNL Risk / Return Rank: 33
Overall Rank
UNL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UNL Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
Sortino Ratio Rank
UNL Omega Ratio Rank: 33
Omega Ratio Rank
UNL Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
Calmar Ratio Rank
UNL Martin Ratio Rank: 33
Martin Ratio Rank

BEMB
BEMB Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
BEMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BEMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
BEMB Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
BEMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
BEMB Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
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.

UNL vs. BEMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL) and Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB). 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.


UNLBEMBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.87

1.45

-0.58

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.81

2.68

-3.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.30

11.53

-12.83

UNL vs. BEMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UNL Sharpe Ratio is -0.79, which is lower than the BEMB Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UNL and BEMB, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


UNLBEMBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.79

2.30

-3.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.40

1.45

-1.85

Drawdowns

UNL vs. BEMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UNL drawdown since its inception was -89.00%, which is greater than BEMB's maximum drawdown of -6.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UNL and BEMB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


UNLBEMBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.00%

-6.17%

-82.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.11%

-3.67%

-31.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-48.16%

-6.17%

-41.99%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-78.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-78.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-88.37%

-0.34%

-88.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-73.36%

-0.94%

-72.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

21.92%

0.85%

+21.07%

Volatility

UNL vs. BEMB - Volatility Comparison

United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL) has a higher volatility of 8.36% compared to Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (BEMB) at 1.49%. This indicates that UNL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BEMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


UNLBEMBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.36%

1.49%

+6.87%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.00%

3.46%

+28.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

35.82%

4.26%

+31.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

41.76%

5.88%

+35.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.84%

5.88%

+27.96%

UNL vs. BEMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

UNL has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than BEMB's 0.18% expense ratio.


Dividends

UNL vs. BEMB - Dividend Comparison

UNL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BEMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.88%.


PositionTTM202520242023
BEMB
Ishares J.P. Morgan Broad USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
6.88%6.88%6.31%5.46%
UNL
United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


UNL and BEMB have a correlation of -0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

UNL has higher volatility (8.36%) compared to BEMB (1.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UNL dropped -89.00% vs BEMB's -6.17%.

On 3-year performance, BEMB leads with 8.80% vs -14.70% for UNL. On fees, BEMB is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BEMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, BEMB has performed better with a 8.80% return vs -14.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BEMB is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for UNL.

BEMB has the higher dividend yield at 6.88%, compared with 0.00% for UNL.

UNL is categorized as Oil & Gas, while BEMB is Emerging Markets Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Concierge Technologies and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for UNL and 0.18% for BEMB.

BEMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs -0.79), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UNL and BEMB

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