CQQQ vs. KBA

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA).

CQQQ and KBA are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CQQQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the AlphaShares China Technology Index. It was launched on Dec 8, 2009. KBA is a passively managed fund by CICC that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Index. It was launched on Mar 5, 2014. Both CQQQ and KBA are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

CQQQ vs. KBA - Performance Comparison

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

CQQQ vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	-11.50%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-34.77%	74.31%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	-2.07%	33.88%	15.73%	-16.77%	-3.49%	3.17%	41.62%	35.44%	-26.28%	30.69%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a -11.50% return, which is significantly lower than KBA's -2.07% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has underperformed KBA with an annualized return of 3.76%, while KBA has yielded a comparatively higher 8.14% annualized return.

CQQQ

• 1D: 2.91%
• 1M: -11.62%
• YTD: -11.50%
• 6M: -20.29%
• 1Y: 6.15%
• 3Y*: 0.59%
• 5Y*: -10.73%
• 10Y*: 3.76%

KBA

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: -1.37%
• YTD: -2.07%
• 6M: 2.24%
• 1Y: 30.16%
• 3Y*: 7.43%
• 5Y*: 5.20%
• 10Y*: 8.14%

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

CQQQ vs. KBA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CQQQ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than KBA's 0.60% expense ratio.

CQQQ

Invesco China Technology ETF

KBA

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF

Return for Risk

CQQQ vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 18
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 20
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 17

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 85
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 83
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

CQQQ vs. KBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) 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.

	CQQQ	KBA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.19	1.63	-1.43
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	2.20	-1.69
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.32	-0.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.23	2.54	-2.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	0.63	10.01	-9.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CQQQ vs. KBA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.19, which is lower than the KBA Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CQQQ and KBA, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CQQQ	KBA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19	1.63	-1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.29	0.19	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.11	0.32	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	0.31	-0.16

Correlation

The correlation between CQQQ and KBA is 0.68, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

CQQQ vs. KBA - Dividend Comparison

CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than KBA's 1.60% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.45%	2.17%	0.28%	0.55%	0.08%	0.00%	0.47%	0.01%	0.43%	1.41%	1.69%	1.77%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.60%	1.56%	2.18%	2.34%	49.05%	9.07%	0.65%	1.53%	3.77%	1.46%	6.62%	29.08%

Drawdowns

CQQQ vs. KBA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, which is greater than KBA's maximum drawdown of -53.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and KBA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CQQQ	KBA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.99%	-53.24%	-20.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.41%	-11.30%	-13.11%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-67.04%	-40.42%	-26.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.99%	-45.32%	-28.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-56.10%	-5.08%	-51.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.04%	-26.15%	-1.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.99%	3.01%	+5.98%

Volatility

CQQQ vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison

Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 10.60% compared to KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) at 5.63%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KBA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CQQQ	KBA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.60%	5.63%	+4.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.75%	11.80%	+8.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.95%	18.64%	+13.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.72%	27.07%	+10.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.06%	25.28%	+7.78%