EMB vs HYLB ETF Comparison
Compare EMB and HYLB across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between EMB and HYLB?
EMB is iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF, while HYLB is Xtrackers USD High Yield Corporate Bond ETF. EMB is tied to Fixed Income; HYLB is tied to Fixed Income. HYLB is broader by holdings count, with 1,268 positions versus 614 for EMB. HYLB has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | EMB | HYLB | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.05% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $14.7B | $3.5B | Fund |
| Holdings | 614 | 1,268 | Fund |
| Average volume | 7,001,485 | 1,674,020 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | Fund |
| 1Y return | +1.2% | -1.6% | Performance |
| YTD return | -1.9% | -1.8% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 4.1% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -3.1% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.30 | 0.21 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -1.39 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -1.77 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 48/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 | 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 Xtrackers USD High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
EMB leads
EMB leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support EMB.
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
Xtrackers USD High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMB over HYLB, 59 versus 48 as of Sep 5, 2026. EMB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. EMB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. EMB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions. EMB leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF and Xtrackers USD High Yield Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare EMB and HYLB 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.
- Value30%55 vs 36EMB +19
- Quality30%66 vs 56EMB +10
- Risk Resilience15%91 vs 84EMB +7
- Momentum25%35 vs 31EMB +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor EMB. EMB’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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 +3
No new signals fired.
EMB's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMB and HYLB 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
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
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 | HYLB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $14.7B | $3.5B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 614 | 1,268 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,001,485 | 1,674,020 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 4.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -3.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -1.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.30 | 0.21 | 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 HYLB?
HYLB currently has more reported holdings, with 1,268 positions versus 614.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
HYLB 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?
HYLB 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 48.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | EMB | 59 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | EMB | Value 55 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs -1.2% |
| Risk Resilience | EMB | Risk Resilience 91 vs 84 |
| 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 HYLB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- 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 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMB +11
- 59 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- EMB +4
- 60 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- EMB +9
- 62 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- EMB +11
- 68 vs 57
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 (0.72%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.6%)
HYLB is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1 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.
- 1HYLB closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMB's edge.
- 2HYLB'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
HYLB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EMB | HYLB |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | -1.2% |
| Year to date | -1.9% | -1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EMB | HYLB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 37 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | -1.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 5.5% | 4.2% |
Risk
EMB is the more resilient| Metric | EMB | HYLB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -1.77 |
| Max drawdown | -4.9% | -3.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -2.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.9% | 4.1% |
| 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, EMB or HYLB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against HYLB's 48. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 HYLB the better buy right now?
EMB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EMB over HYLB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EMB leads Value by 19 points; EMB leads Quality by 10 points; EMB leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. EMB leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by HYLB simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which is better value, EMB or HYLB?
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 HYLB?
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 HYLB?
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 HYLB?
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 HYLB?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is EMB's lead over HYLB getting stronger or weaker?
EMB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EMB vs HYLB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HYLB closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMB's edge; HYLB'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 HYLB?
EMB: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. HYLB: 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 HYLB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EMB and HYLB 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.