ISVBF vs. KBA
ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) are both China Equities funds - ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index while KBA tracks the MSCI China A Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ISVBF returned -2.48%/yr vs 6.68%/yr for KBA. Their 0.25 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for KBA.
Performance
ISVBF vs. KBA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -6.75% return, which is significantly lower than KBA's 7.51% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 9.06%
- 6M
- -8.63%
- YTD
- -6.75%
- 1Y
- -0.99%
- 3Y*
- 8.45%
- 5Y*
- -2.48%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -4.43%
KBA
- 1D
- 1.22%
- 1M
- 1.47%
- 6M
- 9.64%
- YTD
- 7.51%
- 1Y
- 33.17%
- 3Y*
- 12.50%
- 5Y*
- 6.68%
- 10Y*
- 9.36%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.55%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $147.49K | $255.95K | $315.23K | |
| $840.48K | $865.25K | $2.10M |
ISVBF vs. KBA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -6.75% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF | 7.51% | 33.88% | 15.73% | -16.77% | -3.49% | 4.97% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and KBA is 0.47, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.47 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.38 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.25 |
Over the past year, ISVBF and KBA have become more correlated (0.47) than their long-term average of 0.25, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
ISVBF vs. KBA — Risk / Return Rank
ISVBF
KBA
ISVBF vs. KBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) 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.
| ISVBF | KBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.63 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.05 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.02 | 1.28 | -0.26 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.04 | 4.00 | -4.04 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.09 | 9.42 | -9.51 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ISVBF vs. KBA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, roughly equal to the maximum KBA drawdown of -53.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and KBA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ISVBF | KBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.78% | -53.24% | -0.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.14% | -8.33% | -15.81% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.14% | -31.23% | +7.09% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -46.06% | -39.76% | -6.30% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -45.32% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.42% | -6.16% | -18.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.57% | -25.52% | -7.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.23% | 3.53% | +7.70% |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. KBA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) is 6.46%, while KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a volatility of 7.84%. This indicates that ISVBF 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
| ISVBF | KBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.46% | 7.84% | -1.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.45% | 16.42% | +10.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.60% | 20.86% | +10.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.08% | 27.34% | +2.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.06% | 25.51% | +4.55% |
ISVBF vs. KBA - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than KBA's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
ISVBF vs. KBA - Dividend Comparison
ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF | 1.45% | 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
ISVBF and KBA have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
KBA has higher volatility (7.84%) compared to ISVBF (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs KBA's -53.24%.
On 5-year performance, KBA leads with 6.68% vs -2.48% for ISVBF. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISVBF has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, KBA has performed better with a 6.68% return vs -2.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for KBA.
KBA has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while KBA tracks MSCI China A Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.60% for KBA.
KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 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.
Find the right allocation for ISVBF 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