UNL vs. EMB
UNL (United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP) and EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UNL is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the 12 Month Natural Gas, while EMB is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPMorgan EMBI Global Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UNL returned -3.81%/yr vs 3.29%/yr for EMB. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UNL charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for EMB.
Performance
UNL vs. EMB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UNL achieves a -11.00% return, which is significantly lower than EMB's 1.80% return. Over the past 10 years, UNL has underperformed EMB with an annualized return of -3.81%, while EMB has yielded a comparatively higher 3.29% annualized 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%
EMB
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 1.29%
- YTD
- 1.80%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 11.56%
- 3Y*
- 9.74%
- 5Y*
- 1.86%
- 10Y*
- 3.29%
UNL vs. EMB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UNL United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP | -11.00% | -9.67% | -4.78% | -50.20% | 47.01% | 54.42% | -9.54% | -18.78% | 12.53% | -21.47% |
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 1.80% | 13.85% | 5.54% | 10.62% | -18.63% | -2.23% | 5.42% | 15.48% | -5.47% | 10.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between UNL and EMB is -0.27, 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 | -0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2010 | 0.01 |
The correlation between UNL and EMB shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), 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. EMB — Risk / Return Rank
UNL
EMB
UNL vs. EMB - 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 USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB). 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.
| UNL | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.89 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 1.41 | -0.53 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.81 | 2.58 | -3.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.30 | 11.01 | -12.31 |
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
| UNL | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.79 | 2.09 | -2.89 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.14 | 0.19 | -0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.11 | 0.33 | -0.44 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.40 | 0.44 | -0.83 |
Drawdowns
UNL vs. EMB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UNL drawdown since its inception was -89.00%, which is greater than EMB's maximum drawdown of -34.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UNL and EMB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UNL | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.00% | -34.70% | -54.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.11% | -4.51% | -30.60% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -48.16% | -7.95% | -40.21% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -78.12% | -28.74% | -49.38% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.12% | -28.74% | -49.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -88.37% | -0.37% | -88.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -73.36% | -5.06% | -68.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 21.92% | 1.05% | +20.87% |
Volatility
UNL vs. EMB - Volatility Comparison
United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL) has a higher volatility of 8.36% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB) at 1.85%. This indicates that UNL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UNL | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.36% | 1.85% | +6.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 32.00% | 4.52% | +27.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.82% | 5.56% | +30.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 41.76% | 9.75% | +32.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.84% | 9.96% | +23.88% |
UNL vs. EMB - Expense Ratio Comparison
UNL has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than EMB's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
UNL vs. EMB - Dividend Comparison
UNL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.06%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 5.06% | 4.98% | 5.46% | 4.74% | 5.04% | 3.89% | 3.88% | 4.51% | 5.64% | 4.54% | 4.83% | 4.84% |
UNL United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
UNL and EMB have a correlation of -0.27, 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 EMB (1.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UNL dropped -89.00% vs EMB's -34.70%.
On 10-year performance, EMB leads with 3.29% vs -3.81% for UNL. On fees, EMB is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, EMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, EMB has performed better with a 3.29% return vs -3.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMB is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for UNL.
EMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.06%, compared with 0.00% for UNL.
UNL is categorized as Oil & Gas, while EMB is Emerging Markets Bonds. UNL tracks 12 Month Natural Gas, while EMB tracks JPMorgan EMBI Global Core Index. They also come from different issuers: Concierge Technologies and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for UNL and 0.39% for EMB.
EMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 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.
Find the right allocation for UNL and EMB
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