EMB vs HYG ETF Comparison
Compare EMB and HYG across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between EMB and HYG?
EMB is iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF, while HYG is iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF. EMB is tied to Fixed Income; HYG is tied to Fixed Income. HYG is broader by holdings count, with 1,321 positions versus 614 for EMB. EMB has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | EMB | HYG | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.49% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $14.7B | $15.5B | Fund |
| Holdings | 614 | 1,321 | Fund |
| Average volume | 7,001,485 | 53,077,159 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | Fund |
| 1Y return | +1.2% | -1.5% | Performance |
| YTD return | -1.9% | -1.8% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 4.2% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -3.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.30 | 0.22 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -1.34 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -1.82 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 31/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 91/100 | 84/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF vs iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
EMB and HYG are effectively level
EMB and HYG are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate EMB and HYG as of Sep 5, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare EMB and HYG 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.
- Quality30%66 vs 73HYG +7
- Risk Resilience15%91 vs 84EMB +7
- Momentum25%35 vs 31EMB +4
- Value30%55 vs 55Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +4
No new signals fired.
HYG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMB and HYG both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EMBEMB on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
EMBEMB on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
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 | HYG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.49% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $14.7B | $15.5B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 614 | 1,321 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,001,485 | 53,077,159 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 4.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -3.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -1.34 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.30 | 0.22 | 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 HYG?
HYG currently has more reported holdings, with 1,321 positions versus 614.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
EMB 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?
EMB has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
HYG has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
The current AlgovestIQ evidence does not show a clear leader.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 55 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs -1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EMB | Risk Resilience 91 vs 84 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3HYG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- HYG +7
- 60 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- HYG +2
- 62 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- EMB +1
- 68 vs 67
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 13 when HYG 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%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.65%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
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 -0.06%, AIQ +1 points).
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
HYG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EMB | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | -0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | -1.9% | -1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EMB | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | -1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.5% | 4% |
Risk
EMB is the more resilient| Metric | EMB | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -1.82 |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -3.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -2.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 4.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.6% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better value, EMB or HYG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 HYG?
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 HYG?
EMB on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 HYG?
EMB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMB on Risk Resilience, by 7 points. 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 HYG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about EMB and HYG?
EMB: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. HYG: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on EMB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HYG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EMB and HYG 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.