PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IPAC vs. KBA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IPAC vs. KBA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IPAC (iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF) and KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IPAC is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific IMI Index (Net), while KBA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IPAC returned 8.82%/yr vs 9.42%/yr for KBA. Their 0.45 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IPAC charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for KBA.

Performance

IPAC vs. KBA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAC achieves a 14.24% return, which is significantly higher than KBA's 7.15% return. Over the past 10 years, IPAC has underperformed KBA with an annualized return of 8.82%, while KBA has yielded a comparatively higher 9.42% annualized return.

IPAC

1D
-0.96%
1M
0.87%
6M
7.59%
YTD
14.24%
1Y
26.06%
3Y*
16.33%
5Y*
8.37%
10Y*
8.82%
ALL TIME*
7.31%

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

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IPAC

iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF
$5.46M$8.24M$8.98M

KBA

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF
$842.71K$977.36K$2.09M

IPAC vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IPAC
iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF		14.24%25.16%6.18%14.51%-13.68%3.09%12.39%19.44%-12.78%25.97%
KBA
KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF		7.15%33.88%15.73%-16.77%-3.49%3.17%41.62%35.44%-26.28%30.69%

Correlation

The correlation between IPAC and KBA is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.48

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.40

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.42

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2014

0.45

IPAC vs. KBA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IPAC
KBA

Financial Services

24.9%
16.9%

Industrials

20.5%
14.4%

Technology

13.7%
37.5%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
4.1%

Basic Materials

8.3%
10.1%

Healthcare

5.4%
4.0%

Real Estate

5.0%
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

4.0%
5.8%

Communication Services

3.8%
1.2%

Energy

1.7%
2.4%

Utilities

1.6%
3.2%

Financial Services

IPAC
24.9%
KBA
16.9%

Industrials

IPAC
20.5%
KBA
14.4%

Technology

IPAC
13.7%
KBA
37.5%

Consumer Cyclical

IPAC
10.6%
KBA
4.1%

Basic Materials

IPAC
8.3%
KBA
10.1%

Healthcare

IPAC
5.4%
KBA
4.0%

Real Estate

IPAC
5.0%
KBA
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

IPAC
4.0%
KBA
5.8%

Communication Services

IPAC
3.8%
KBA
1.2%

Energy

IPAC
1.7%
KBA
2.4%

Utilities

IPAC
1.6%
KBA
3.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF

Often compared with IPAC:
IPAC vs. VPLIPAC vs. FLCHIPAC vs. IVALIPAC vs. IEMGIPAC vs. SPYIPAC vs. ^GSPCIPAC vs. VEA
Often compared with KBA:
KBA vs. ASHRKBA vs. CNYAKBA vs. KGRNKBA vs. EWTKBA vs. MCHIKBA vs. HEZUKBA vs. ASHS

Return for Risk

IPAC vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IPAC
IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
KBA
KBA Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IPAC vs. KBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) 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.

IPACKBADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.52
1.63

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.15
2.27

-0.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.29

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.32

4.08

-1.76

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.11

9.76

-1.65

IPAC vs. KBA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is comparable to the KBA Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAC 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IPAC vs. KBA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAC drawdown since its inception was -30.99%, smaller than the maximum KBA drawdown of -53.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAC and KBA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IPACKBADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.99%

-53.24%

+22.25%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.49%

-8.33%

-3.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.45%

-31.23%

+15.78%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.64%

-39.76%

+10.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.99%

-45.32%

+14.33%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.71%

-6.47%

+4.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.41%

-25.53%

+18.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.29%

3.48%

-0.19%

Volatility

IPAC vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) is 5.93%, while KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a volatility of 8.55%. This indicates that IPAC 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IPACKBADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.93%

8.55%

-2.62%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.93%

16.45%

-1.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.58%

20.87%

-3.29%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.89%

27.33%

-10.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.65%

25.49%

-8.84%

IPAC vs. KBA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IPAC has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than KBA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

IPAC vs. KBA - Dividend Comparison

IPAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.86%, more than KBA's 1.46% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IPAC
iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF		3.86%4.32%3.43%3.16%2.76%4.03%1.68%3.37%2.95%2.98%2.66%2.60%
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

IPAC and KBA have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

KBA has higher volatility (8.55%) compared to IPAC (5.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAC dropped -30.99% vs KBA's -53.24%.

On 10-year performance, KBA leads with 9.42% vs 8.82% for IPAC. On fees, IPAC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IPAC has been the lower-risk option at 5.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, KBA has performed better with a 9.42% return vs 8.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IPAC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for KBA.

IPAC has the higher dividend yield at 3.86%, compared with 1.46% for KBA.

IPAC is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while KBA is China Equities. IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific IMI Index (Net), while KBA tracks MSCI China A Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for IPAC and 0.60% for KBA.

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.63 vs 1.52), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IPAC 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