FXI vs. KCAI

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FXI (iShares China Large-Cap ETF) and KCAI (KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF) are both China Equities funds - FXI tracks the FTSE China 50 Index while KCAI tracks the Qi China Alpha Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FXI returned 0.82% vs 39.71% for KCAI. Their 0.59 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FXI charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KCAI.

Performance

FXI vs. KCAI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) and KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FXI achieves a -4.06% return, which is significantly lower than KCAI's 7.38% return.

FXI

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 14.26%
• 6M: -6.22%
• YTD: -4.06%
• 1Y: 0.82%
• 3Y*: 10.52%
• 5Y*: -0.17%
• 10Y*: 2.59%
• ALL TIME*: 5.58%

KCAI

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 4.60%
• 6M: 7.73%
• YTD: 7.38%
• 1Y: 39.71%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 37.06%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF	$711.55M	$774.56M	$979.33M
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	$42.47K	$26.27K	$160.21K

FXI vs. KCAI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF	-4.06%	28.95%	16.32%
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	7.38%	53.29%	11.36%

Correlation

The correlation between FXI and KCAI is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2024	0.59

The correlation between FXI and KCAI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

FXI vs. KCAI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FXI	KCAI
Financial Services	35.2%	41.3%
Consumer Cyclical	25.3%	9.4%
Communication Services	17.8%	-
Technology	5.9%	17.8%
Energy	4.8%	-
Basic Materials	3.4%	11.0%
Industrials	2.8%	20.5%
Healthcare	2.6%	1.3%
Real Estate	1.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	-
Utilities	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

FXI vs. KCAI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FXI

FXI Risk / Return Rank: 12
FXI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
FXI Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
FXI Omega Ratio Rank: 12
FXI Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
FXI Martin Ratio Rank: 12

KCAI

KCAI Risk / Return Rank: 95
KCAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
KCAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
KCAI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
KCAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
KCAI Martin Ratio Rank: 95

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FXI vs. KCAI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) and KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI). 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.

	FXI	KCAI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.04	2.76	-2.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.20	4.00	-3.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.48	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.04	6.65	-6.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.08	19.83	-19.75

FXI vs. KCAI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FXI Sharpe Ratio is 0.04, which is lower than the KCAI Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FXI and KCAI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FXI vs. KCAI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FXI drawdown since its inception was -72.68%, which is greater than KCAI's maximum drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXI and KCAI.

Drawdown Indicators

	FXI	KCAI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-72.68%	-25.48%	-47.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.94%	-5.90%	-17.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.88%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-60.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.45%	-1.56%	-22.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.21%	-6.83%	-24.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.03%	1.97%	+8.06%

Volatility

FXI vs. KCAI - Volatility Comparison

iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) and KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) have volatilities of 5.13% and 5.08%, 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

	FXI	KCAI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.13%	5.08%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.33%	9.82%	+4.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.27%	14.22%	+6.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.44%	20.80%	+10.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.61%	20.80%	+6.81%

FXI vs. KCAI - Expense Ratio Comparison

FXI has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than KCAI's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FXI vs. KCAI - Dividend Comparison

FXI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.86%, less than KCAI's 32.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF	1.86%	2.42%	1.76%	3.17%	2.61%	1.60%	2.19%	2.74%	2.69%	2.31%	2.69%	2.90%
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	32.99%	35.42%	2.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FXI and KCAI in my portfolio?

FXI and KCAI have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FXI or KCAI?

FXI has higher volatility (5.13%) compared to KCAI (5.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FXI dropped -72.68% vs KCAI's -25.48%.

Which ETF is better, FXI or KCAI?

On 1-year performance, KCAI leads with 39.71% vs 0.82% for FXI. On fees, FXI is cheaper at 0.74% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FXI or KCAI?

Over the 1-year period, KCAI has performed better with a 39.71% return vs 0.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FXI or KCAI?

FXI is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KCAI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FXI or KCAI?

KCAI has the higher dividend yield at 32.99%, compared with 1.86% for FXI.

What is the main difference between FXI and KCAI?

FXI tracks FTSE China 50 Index, while KCAI tracks Qi China Alpha Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FXI and 0.79% for KCAI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KCAI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.76 vs 0.04), 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.