CNQQ vs. KBA
CNQQ (Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF) and KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) are both China Equities funds - CNQQ tracks the Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech while KBA tracks the MSCI China A Index. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CNQQ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for KBA.
Performance
CNQQ vs. KBA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNQQ achieves a 1.50% return, which is significantly lower than KBA's 7.15% return.
CNQQ
- 1D
- 0.73%
- 1M
- -4.81%
- 6M
- -0.44%
- YTD
- 1.50%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
KBA
- 1D
- -0.78%
- 1M
- 1.13%
- 6M
- 7.50%
- YTD
- 7.15%
- 1Y
- 34.07%
- 3Y*
- 12.68%
- 5Y*
- 7.04%
- 10Y*
- 9.42%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.52%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $685.05K | $467.08K | $508.55K | |
| $842.71K | $977.36K | $2.09M |
CNQQ vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 1.50% | -5.22% |
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF | 7.15% | 4.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNQQ and KBA is 0.81, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 26, 2025 | 0.81 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CNQQ vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank
CNQQ
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
KBA
CNQQ vs. KBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ) 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| CNQQ | KBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.29 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 4.08 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 9.76 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNQQ vs. KBA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNQQ drawdown since its inception was -17.82%, smaller than the maximum KBA drawdown of -53.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNQQ and KBA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNQQ | KBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.82% | -53.24% | +35.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -8.33% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -31.23% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -39.76% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -45.32% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -12.07% | -6.47% | -5.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.56% | -25.53% | +16.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.48% | — |
Volatility
CNQQ vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNQQ | KBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 8.55% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 16.45% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.77% | 20.87% | +6.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.77% | 27.33% | +0.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.77% | 25.49% | +2.28% |
CNQQ vs. KBA - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNQQ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than KBA's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNQQ vs. KBA - Dividend Comparison
CNQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than KBA's 1.46% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 0.39% | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF | 1.46% | 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
CNQQ and KBA have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CNQQ.
KBA has the higher dividend yield at 1.46%, compared with 0.39% for CNQQ.
CNQQ tracks Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech, while KBA tracks MSCI China A Index. They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CNQQ and 0.60% for KBA.
Find the right allocation for CNQQ and KBA
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer