CGRO vs. KBA

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) are both China Equities funds. CGRO is actively managed, while KBA is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.15% vs 46.15% for KBA. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for KBA.

Performance

CGRO vs. KBA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -15.64% return, which is significantly lower than KBA's 11.36% return.

CGRO

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: -6.61%
• YTD: -15.64%
• 6M: -16.66%
• 1Y: -12.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KBA

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: 2.38%
• YTD: 11.36%
• 6M: 15.30%
• 1Y: 46.15%
• 3Y*: 16.18%
• 5Y*: 6.22%
• 10Y*: 10.02%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGRO vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-15.64%	20.23%	14.75%	2.03%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	11.36%	33.88%	15.73%	-3.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and KBA is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2023	0.68

The correlation between CGRO and KBA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGRO vs. KBA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGRO	KBA
Consumer Cyclical	43.9%	5.7%
Industrials	15.6%	15.8%
Technology	14.8%	29.8%
Communication Services	13.3%	1.6%
Healthcare	5.7%	4.1%
Financial Services	3.3%	18.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	6.8%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.6%
Basic Materials	-	10.9%
Energy	-	3.2%
Utilities	-	3.2%

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 5
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 5

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 83
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 82

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CGRO vs. KBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA). 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.

	CGRO	KBA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.55	2.62	-3.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.66	3.59	-4.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.47	-0.55
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.44	6.06	-6.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.83	16.23	-17.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGRO vs. KBA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.55, which is lower than the KBA Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and KBA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGRO	KBA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.55	2.62	-3.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.23	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.40	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	0.35	-0.12

Drawdowns

CGRO vs. KBA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -27.90%, smaller than the maximum KBA drawdown of -53.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and KBA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	KBA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.90%	-53.24%	+25.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.90%	-7.65%	-20.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-31.23%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-39.95%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-45.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.90%	-2.36%	-25.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.25%	-25.80%	+15.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.67%	2.85%	+11.82%

Volatility

CGRO vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison

CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) have volatilities of 7.68% and 7.38%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	KBA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.68%	7.38%	+0.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.54%	12.49%	+3.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.47%	17.68%	+4.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.97%	27.20%	+1.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.97%	25.32%	+3.65%

CGRO vs. KBA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than KBA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGRO vs. KBA - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, more than KBA's 1.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.32%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.40%	1.56%	2.18%	2.34%	49.05%	9.07%	0.65%	1.53%	3.77%	1.46%	6.62%	29.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGRO and KBA in my portfolio?

CGRO and KBA have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGRO or KBA?

CGRO has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to KBA (7.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -27.90% vs KBA's -53.24%.

Which ETF is better, CGRO or KBA?

On 1-year performance, KBA leads with 46.15% vs -12.15% for CGRO. On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, KBA has been the lower-risk option at 7.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGRO or KBA?

Over the 1-year period, KBA has performed better with a 46.15% return vs -12.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGRO or KBA?

KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGRO or KBA?

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 1.40% for KBA.

What is the main difference between CGRO and KBA?

They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.60% for KBA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.62 vs -0.55), 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.