IPAC vs. KCAI

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IPAC (iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF) and KCAI (KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IPAC is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific IMI Index (Net), while KCAI is a China Equities fund tracking the Qi China Alpha Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IPAC returned 26.06% vs 39.71% for KCAI. Their 0.30 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IPAC charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KCAI.

Performance

IPAC vs. KCAI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) 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, IPAC achieves a 14.24% return, which is significantly higher than KCAI's 7.38% 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%

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)
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	$5.46M	$8.24M	$8.98M
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	$42.47K	$26.27K	$160.21K

IPAC vs. KCAI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	14.24%	25.16%	-3.88%
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	7.38%	53.29%	11.36%

Correlation

The correlation between IPAC and KCAI is 0.33, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2024	0.30

IPAC vs. KCAI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IPAC	KCAI
Financial Services	24.9%	41.3%
Industrials	20.5%	20.5%
Technology	13.7%	17.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	9.4%
Basic Materials	8.3%	11.0%
Healthcare	5.4%	1.3%
Real Estate	5.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.0%	-
Communication Services	3.8%	-
Energy	1.7%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-

Return for Risk

IPAC vs. KCAI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IPAC

IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 67
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

IPAC vs. KCAI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	IPAC	KCAI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	2.76	-1.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.15	4.00	-1.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.48	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.32	6.65	-4.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.11	19.83	-11.72

IPAC vs. KCAI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is lower than the KCAI Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAC 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

IPAC vs. KCAI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAC drawdown since its inception was -30.99%, which is greater than KCAI's maximum drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAC and KCAI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAC	KCAI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.99%	-25.48%	-5.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.49%	-5.90%	-5.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.45%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.64%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.71%	-1.56%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.41%	-6.83%	-0.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.29%	1.97%	+1.32%

Volatility

IPAC vs. KCAI - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) has a higher volatility of 5.93% compared to KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) at 5.08%. This indicates that IPAC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KCAI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IPAC	KCAI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.93%	5.08%	+0.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.93%	9.82%	+5.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.58%	14.22%	+3.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.89%	20.80%	-3.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.65%	20.80%	-4.15%

IPAC vs. KCAI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IPAC has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than KCAI's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

IPAC vs. KCAI - Dividend Comparison

IPAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.86%, less than KCAI's 32.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
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 IPAC and KCAI in my portfolio?

IPAC and KCAI have a correlation of 0.33, 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 KCAI?

IPAC has higher volatility (5.93%) compared to KCAI (5.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAC dropped -30.99% vs KCAI's -25.48%.

Which ETF is better, IPAC or KCAI?

On 1-year performance, KCAI leads with 39.71% vs 26.06% for IPAC. On fees, IPAC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, KCAI has been the lower-risk option at 5.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IPAC or KCAI?

Over the 1-year period, KCAI has performed better with a 39.71% return vs 26.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IPAC or KCAI?

IPAC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KCAI.

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

KCAI has the higher dividend yield at 32.99%, compared with 3.86% for IPAC.

What is the main difference between IPAC and KCAI?

IPAC is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while KCAI is China Equities. IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific IMI Index (Net), while KCAI tracks Qi China Alpha Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for IPAC and 0.79% for KCAI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KCAI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.76 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.