ISVBF vs. CAOS

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ISVBF is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. ISVBF is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ISVBF returned 8.64%/yr vs 3.63%/yr for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -8.71% return, which is significantly lower than CAOS's 0.84% return.

ISVBF

• 1D: 1.84%
• 1M: -1.17%
• 6M: -13.00%
• YTD: -8.71%
• 1Y: -1.01%
• 3Y*: 8.64%
• 5Y*: -5.34%
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.12%
• 6M: 0.30%
• YTD: 0.84%
• 1Y: 2.02%
• 3Y*: 3.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-8.71%	30.64%	18.96%	-14.73%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.84%	2.55%	5.33%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between ISVBF and CAOS is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	-0.07

The correlation between ISVBF and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to -0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ISVBF vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 9
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 9

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 53
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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.

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	ISVBF	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	1.31	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.18	2.09	-1.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.27	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	2.68	-2.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.10	6.06	-6.15

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISVBF Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is lower than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISVBF and CAOS, 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

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISVBF	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.78%	-3.89%	-49.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.14%	-0.76%	-23.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.14%	-3.60%	-20.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.01%	-1.04%	-24.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.64%	-0.92%	-31.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.49%	0.33%	+10.16%

Volatility

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a higher volatility of 7.72% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.48%. This indicates that ISVBF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ISVBF	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.72%	0.48%	+7.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.02%	1.09%	+25.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.48%	1.56%	+29.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.46%	4.20%	+26.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.13%	4.20%	+25.93%

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISVBF vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

Neither ISVBF nor CAOS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISVBF and CAOS in my portfolio?

ISVBF and CAOS have a correlation of -0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISVBF or CAOS?

ISVBF has higher volatility (7.72%) compared to CAOS (0.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs CAOS's -3.89%.

Which ETF is better, ISVBF or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, ISVBF leads with 8.64% vs 3.63% for CAOS. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISVBF or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a 8.64% return vs 3.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISVBF or CAOS?

ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for CAOS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ISVBF or CAOS?

ISVBF and CAOS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between ISVBF and CAOS?

ISVBF is categorized as China Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAOS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.31 vs -0.03), 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.