LQD vs EMB: returns, risk and drawdowns compared
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF against iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF, over the same 18 years (January 2008 to October 2026) with dividends reinvested.
Data updated October 2026
From January 2008 to October 2026, LQD returned 3.9% a year and EMB 4.4% a year on average, so EMB came out ahead by 0.5% a year. EMB was the more volatile of the two (11.4% against 8.3% a year), and the deepest falls from a month-end high were 23.3% for LQD and 26.7% for EMB.
The correlation of monthly returns was 0.79: they usually moved together. Over 191 rolling 3-year periods, LQD did better in 41% and EMB in 59%.
Side by side
| LQD | EMB | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual return (CAGR) | +3.9% | +4.4% |
| Total return | +104% | +125% |
| Annual volatility | 8.3% | 11.4% |
| Maximum drawdown (month-end) | −23.3% | −26.7% |
| Worst month | −10.7% | −19.4% |
| Best month | +13.8% | +17.7% |
| Positive months | 60% | 64% |
| Best year | 2019: +17.4% | 2012: +16.9% |
| Worst year | 2022: −17.9% | 2022: −18.6% |
| 1-year return | −3.9% | +0.0% |
| 5 years, a year | −0.8% | +1.5% |
| 10 years, a year | +1.9% | +2.4% |
| Trading currency | USD | USD |
First nine rows: the same 226 months for both funds. Trailing returns: to each fund’s last close.
Growth of 10,000: LQD vs EMB
Returns by calendar year
| Year | LQD | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | +7.9% | +13.9% |
| 2024 | +0.9% | +5.5% |
| 2023 | +9.4% | +10.6% |
| 2022 | −17.9% | −18.6% |
| 2021 | −1.8% | −2.2% |
| 2020 | +10.7% | +5.4% |
| 2019 | +17.4% | +15.5% |
| 2018 | −3.8% | −5.5% |
| 2017 | +7.1% | +10.3% |
| 2016 | +6.2% | +9.3% |
| 2015 | −1.3% | +1.0% |
| 2014 | +8.2% | +6.0% |
| 2013 | −2.0% | −7.8% |
| 2012 | +10.6% | +16.9% |
| 2011 | +9.7% | +7.6% |
| 2010 | +9.3% | +10.8% |
| 2009 | +8.5% | +15.4% |
| 2008 | +2.4% | −2.1% |
How the figures are calculated
Total return in the fund’s trading currency, from end-of-day prices with dividends reinvested on the ex-date. The fund’s own ongoing charges are already reflected in its price; trading costs, taxes and currency conversion are not included. Past returns do not predict future returns.
The comparison uses only the months in which both funds have prices, so the figures cover the same period even when one fund is older.
Questions
Which has returned more, LQD or EMB?
From January 2008 to October 2026, LQD returned +3.9% a year and EMB +4.4% a year, with dividends reinvested. Over rolling 3-year periods LQD did better in 41% of cases. Past returns do not predict future returns.
Which is riskier, LQD or EMB?
Over the same months annual volatility was 8.3% for LQD and 11.4% for EMB; the deepest fall from a month-end high was 23.3% and 26.7%, and the worst single month −10.7% and −19.4%.
How correlated are LQD and EMB?
The correlation of their monthly returns was 0.79: they usually moved together. Combining them has historically given some diversification.
More comparisons
Source: MarketStack end-of-day prices, total return with dividends reinvested. Figures are historical and descriptive; they are not forecasts and not investment advice. MEDGE Capital does not recommend buying or selling any instrument. Risk disclaimer.