IPAC vs. KBA

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

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 Investable Market Index, while KBA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IPAC returned 8.77%/yr vs 9.13%/yr for KBA. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. 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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAC achieves a 13.28% return, which is significantly higher than KBA's 6.54% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IPAC having a 8.77% annualized return and KBA not far ahead at 9.13%.

IPAC

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: 0.55%
• 6M: 8.51%
• YTD: 13.28%
• 1Y: 27.10%
• 3Y*: 15.99%
• 5Y*: 7.79%
• 10Y*: 8.77%

KBA

• 1D: -1.26%
• 1M: -2.80%
• 6M: 3.29%
• YTD: 6.54%
• 1Y: 34.92%
• 3Y*: 13.52%
• 5Y*: 5.89%
• 10Y*: 9.13%

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

IPAC vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	13.28%	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	6.54%	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 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2014	0.44

IPAC vs. KBA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IPAC	KBA
Financial Services	22.3%	17.4%
Industrials	19.5%	15.4%
Technology	18.2%	34.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	5.4%
Basic Materials	8.4%	9.3%
Healthcare	5.2%	3.7%
Real Estate	4.8%	0.5%
Communication Services	3.8%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	6.5%
Utilities	1.6%	3.2%
Energy	1.6%	3.0%

Return for Risk

IPAC vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank

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

IPAC

IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 60
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 73
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 66
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

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.

	IPAC	KBA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.76	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	2.42	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.31	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	4.58	-2.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.37	10.82	-2.45

IPAC vs. KBA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the KBA Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. 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.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAC	KBA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.99%	-53.24%	+22.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.49%	-7.65%	-3.84%
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	-2.53%	-7.01%	+4.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-25.62%	+18.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.24%	3.23%	+0.01%

Volatility

IPAC vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) is 5.94%, while KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a volatility of 9.07%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	IPAC	KBA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.94%	9.07%	-3.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.54%	15.47%	-0.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.38%	20.01%	-2.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	27.44%	-10.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.60%	25.44%	-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 3.90%, more than KBA's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	3.90%	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	1.47%	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 IPAC and KBA in my portfolio?

IPAC and KBA have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IPAC or KBA?

KBA has higher volatility (9.07%) compared to IPAC (5.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAC dropped -30.99% vs KBA's -53.24%.

Which ETF is better, IPAC or KBA?

On 10-year performance, KBA leads with 9.13% vs 8.77% for IPAC. On fees, IPAC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IPAC has been the lower-risk option at 5.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IPAC or KBA?

Over the 10-year period, KBA has performed better with a 9.13% return vs 8.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IPAC or KBA?

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

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

IPAC has the higher dividend yield at 3.90%, compared with 1.47% for KBA.

What is the main difference between IPAC and KBA?

IPAC is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while KBA is China Equities. IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index, 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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.57), 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.