EMB vs EMLC ETF Comparison
Compare EMB and EMLC across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between EMB and EMLC?
EMB is iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF, while EMLC is VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF. EMB is tied to Fixed Income; EMLC is tied to Multi-Asset. EMB is broader by holdings count, with 614 positions versus 515 for EMLC. EMLC has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | EMB | EMLC | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.3% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $14.7B | $5.1B | Fund |
| Holdings | 614 | 515 | Fund |
| Average volume | 7,001,485 | 2,384,080 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Multi-Asset | Fund |
| 1Y return | +1.2% | +2% | Performance |
| YTD return | -1.9% | -0.7% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 7.5% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -6.6% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.30 | 0.35 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -0.24 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -0.33 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 55/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 91/100 | 89/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF vs VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF
EMB leads
EMB leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support EMB.
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMB over EMLC, 59 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. EMB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while EMLC holds the stronger momentum profile. EMB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. EMB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare EMB and EMLC against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%35 vs 55EMLC +20
- Value30%55 vs 36EMB +19
- Quality30%66 vs 60EMB +6
- Risk Resilience15%91 vs 89Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor EMB. EMB’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; EMLC keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +18
No new signals fired.
EMB's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMB and EMLC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
EMLC (VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
EMBEMB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EMBEMB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EMLCEMLC on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
EMBEMB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | EMB | EMLC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.3% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $14.7B | $5.1B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 614 | 515 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,001,485 | 2,384,080 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 7.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -0.24 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.30 | 0.35 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, EMB or EMLC?
EMB currently has more reported holdings, with 614 positions versus 515.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
EMLC has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
EMLC has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
EMB has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
EMB currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 59 to 56.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | EMB | Value 55 vs 36 |
| Technicals | EMLC | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs 0.4%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs -0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 91 vs 89 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EMB and EMLC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on EMB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3EMB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMB +3
- 59 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- EMB +5
- 60 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- EMB +2
- 62 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- EMB +9
- 68 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when EMLC moved ahead of EMB.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.58%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.57%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.47%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.02%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ +5 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1EMLC closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMB's edge.
- 2EMLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EMB starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
EMLC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EMB | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | 0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2% | -0.2% |
| Year to date | -1.9% | -0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.2% | 2% |
Technicals
EMLC has the stronger structure| Metric | EMB | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 49.6 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | 0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | -0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.5% | 6.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EMB | EMLC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 7.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.6% | -0.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EMB or EMLC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against EMLC's 56. The edge comes from value and quality. EMLC is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is EMB or EMLC the better buy right now?
EMB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EMB over EMLC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EMLC leads Momentum by 20 points; EMB leads Value by 19 points; EMB leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, EMB or EMLC?
EMB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EMB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, EMB or EMLC?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, EMB or EMLC?
EMLC on the Momentum factor, by 20 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, EMB or EMLC?
EMB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is EMB more profitable than EMLC?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is EMB's lead over EMLC getting stronger or weaker?
EMB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when EMLC moved ahead of EMB.
What would change the EMB vs EMLC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EMLC closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMB's edge; EMLC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EMB starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about EMB and EMLC?
EMB: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. EMLC: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on EMB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EMLC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EMB and EMLC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.