GMF vs. KBA

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while KBA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GMF returned 9.15%/yr vs 9.32%/yr for KBA. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for KBA.

Performance

GMF vs. KBA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) 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, GMF achieves a 10.08% return, which is significantly higher than KBA's 7.54% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with GMF having a 9.15% annualized return and KBA not far ahead at 9.32%.

GMF

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: -2.73%
• 6M: 5.01%
• YTD: 10.08%
• 1Y: 19.69%
• 3Y*: 16.30%
• 5Y*: 5.48%
• 10Y*: 9.15%

KBA

• 1D: -2.09%
• 1M: -2.95%
• 6M: 5.54%
• YTD: 7.54%
• 1Y: 36.56%
• 3Y*: 14.01%
• 5Y*: 6.17%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

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

GMF vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	10.08%	21.99%	16.55%	8.20%	-18.99%	-1.93%	24.96%	19.92%	-14.25%	41.71%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	7.54%	33.88%	15.73%	-16.77%	-3.49%	3.17%	41.62%	35.44%	-26.28%	30.69%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and KBA is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 5, 2014	0.65

The correlation between GMF and KBA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. KBA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMF	KBA
Technology	40.8%	34.1%
Financial Services	15.4%	17.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	5.4%
Industrials	7.3%	15.4%
Communication Services	6.4%	1.4%
Basic Materials	5.8%	9.3%
Healthcare	4.5%	3.7%
Energy	3.1%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	6.5%
Utilities	2.0%	3.2%
Real Estate	1.0%	0.5%

Return for Risk

GMF vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMF

GMF Risk / Return Rank: 37
GMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
GMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
GMF Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
GMF Martin Ratio Rank: 42

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 75
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

GMF vs. KBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) 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.

	GMF	KBA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	1.81	-0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	2.48	-0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.32	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.57	4.80	-3.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.45	11.18	-5.73

GMF vs. KBA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the KBA Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF 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.

Drawdowns

GMF vs. KBA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than KBA's maximum drawdown of -53.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and KBA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMF	KBA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.18%	-53.24%	-13.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.62%	-7.65%	-4.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	-31.23%	+9.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.78%	-39.76%	+5.98%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.18%	-45.32%	+5.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.33%	-6.13%	+0.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.51%	-25.60%	+9.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.62%	3.28%	+0.34%

Volatility

GMF vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 7.02%, while KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a volatility of 9.30%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KBA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMF	KBA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.02%	9.30%	-2.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.64%	15.80%	-0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.29%	20.29%	-2.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.86%	27.47%	-8.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.24%	25.46%	-6.22%

GMF vs. KBA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than KBA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMF vs. KBA - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than KBA's 1.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	1.22%	1.49%	1.92%	2.75%	2.54%	2.71%	1.32%	1.75%	2.26%	1.70%	2.49%	3.76%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.45%	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 GMF and KBA in my portfolio?

GMF and KBA have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMF or KBA?

KBA has higher volatility (9.30%) compared to GMF (7.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs KBA's -53.24%.

Which ETF is better, GMF or KBA?

On 10-year performance, KBA leads with 9.32% vs 9.15% for GMF. On fees, GMF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, GMF has been the lower-risk option at 7.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMF or KBA?

Over the 10-year period, KBA has performed better with a 9.32% return vs 9.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMF or KBA?

GMF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for KBA.

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

KBA has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 1.22% for GMF.

What is the main difference between GMF and KBA?

GMF is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while KBA is China Equities. GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while KBA tracks MSCI China A Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.60% for KBA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 1.08), 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.