GXC vs. KWEB
GXC (SPDR S&P China ETF) and KWEB (KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF) are both China Equities funds - GXC tracks the S&P China BMI Index while KWEB tracks the CSI Overseas China Internet Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GXC returned 4.69%/yr vs 0.31%/yr for KWEB. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GXC charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for KWEB.
Performance
GXC vs. KWEB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GXC achieves a -4.85% return, which is significantly higher than KWEB's -16.33% return. Over the past 10 years, GXC has outperformed KWEB with an annualized return of 4.69%, while KWEB has yielded a comparatively lower 0.31% annualized return.
GXC
- 1D
- 0.38%
- 1M
- 6.09%
- 6M
- -9.74%
- YTD
- -4.85%
- 1Y
- 3.49%
- 3Y*
- 7.77%
- 5Y*
- -2.07%
- 10Y*
- 4.69%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.93%
KWEB
- 1D
- 1.53%
- 1M
- 14.01%
- 6M
- -19.47%
- YTD
- -16.33%
- 1Y
- -12.39%
- 3Y*
- 0.77%
- 5Y*
- -7.53%
- 10Y*
- 0.31%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.65%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $4.07M | $2.78M | $2.53M | |
| $554.38M | $548.17M | $693.22M |
GXC vs. KWEB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | -4.85% | 30.84% | 14.60% | -9.93% | -22.12% | -19.70% | 28.31% | 23.07% | -19.39% | 51.66% |
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | -16.33% | 23.55% | 12.01% | -9.06% | -17.24% | -49.01% | 58.23% | 29.92% | -33.80% | 69.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between GXC and KWEB is 0.89, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.89 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.92 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.92 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2013 | 0.86 |
The correlation between GXC and KWEB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.
GXC vs. KWEB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GXC
KWEB
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Communication Services
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Consumer Defensive
Real Estate
Utilities
-
Consumer Cyclical
GXC
KWEB
Financial Services
GXC
KWEB
Communication Services
GXC
KWEB
Technology
GXC
KWEB
Industrials
GXC
KWEB
Healthcare
GXC
KWEB
Basic Materials
GXC
KWEB
-
Energy
GXC
KWEB
-
Consumer Defensive
GXC
KWEB
Real Estate
GXC
KWEB
Utilities
GXC
KWEB
-
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
GXC vs. KWEB — Risk / Return Rank
GXC
KWEB
GXC vs. KWEB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) and KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB). 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.
| GXC | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 0.93 | +0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.11 | -0.35 | +0.47 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.24 | -0.67 | +0.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GXC vs. KWEB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GXC drawdown since its inception was -71.96%, smaller than the maximum KWEB drawdown of -80.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GXC and KWEB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GXC | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -71.96% | -80.92% | +8.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.77% | -41.62% | +23.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.54% | -41.62% | +16.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -48.78% | -63.96% | +15.18% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -60.23% | -80.92% | +20.69% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -32.76% | -67.05% | +34.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.86% | -35.65% | +6.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.51% | 21.98% | -13.47% |
Volatility
GXC vs. KWEB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) is 5.39%, while KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) has a volatility of 7.76%. This indicates that GXC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KWEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GXC | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.39% | 7.76% | -2.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.92% | 20.68% | -6.76% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.44% | 27.82% | -8.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.70% | 46.99% | -18.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.05% | 40.04% | -13.99% |
GXC vs. KWEB - Expense Ratio Comparison
GXC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than KWEB's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
GXC vs. KWEB - Dividend Comparison
GXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.18%, less than KWEB's 7.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | 2.18% | 2.40% | 2.81% | 3.70% | 2.67% | 1.35% | 1.04% | 1.60% | 2.03% | 1.84% | 2.05% | 2.85% |
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | 7.36% | 6.16% | 3.51% | 1.71% | 0.00% | 7.07% | 0.29% | 0.08% | 3.40% | 0.58% | 1.19% | 0.46% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GXC and KWEB have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
KWEB has higher volatility (7.76%) compared to GXC (5.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GXC dropped -71.96% vs KWEB's -80.92%.
On 10-year performance, GXC leads with 4.69% vs 0.31% for KWEB. On fees, GXC is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, GXC has been the lower-risk option at 5.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GXC has performed better with a 4.69% return vs 0.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GXC is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for KWEB.
KWEB has the higher dividend yield at 7.36%, compared with 2.18% for GXC.
GXC tracks S&P China BMI Index, while KWEB tracks CSI Overseas China Internet Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for GXC and 0.70% for KWEB.
GXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.10 vs -0.53), 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.
Find the right allocation for GXC and KWEB
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