KBA vs. CGRO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) are both China Equities funds. KBA is passively managed, while CGRO is actively managed. Over the past year, KBA returned 49.12% vs -8.71% for CGRO. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CGRO.

Performance

KBA vs. CGRO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KBA achieves a 12.62% return, which is significantly higher than CGRO's -15.06% return.

KBA

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 4.32%
• YTD: 12.62%
• 6M: 16.80%
• 1Y: 49.12%
• 3Y*: 16.22%
• 5Y*: 6.46%
• 10Y*: 10.15%

CGRO

• 1D: -2.60%
• 1M: -6.06%
• YTD: -15.06%
• 6M: -15.52%
• 1Y: -8.71%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KBA vs. CGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	12.62%	33.88%	15.73%	-3.61%
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-15.06%	20.23%	14.75%	2.03%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and CGRO is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2023	0.68

The correlation between KBA and CGRO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

KBA vs. CGRO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KBA	CGRO
Technology	29.8%	14.8%
Financial Services	18.5%	3.3%
Industrials	15.8%	15.6%
Basic Materials	10.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	43.9%
Healthcare	4.1%	5.7%
Energy	3.2%	-
Utilities	3.2%	-
Communication Services	1.6%	13.3%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.1%

Return for Risk

KBA vs. CGRO — Risk / Return Rank

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

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 85
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 83
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 6
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

KBA vs. CGRO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO). 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.

	KBA	CGRO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	-0.39	+3.19
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.80	-0.42	+4.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	0.95	+0.55
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.45	-0.31	+6.76
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.29	-0.60	+17.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

KBA vs. CGRO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KBA Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is higher than the CGRO Sharpe Ratio of -0.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and CGRO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	KBA	CGRO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.80	-0.39	+3.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.40	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.24	+0.11

Drawdowns

KBA vs. CGRO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, which is greater than CGRO's maximum drawdown of -27.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and CGRO.

Drawdown Indicators

	KBA	CGRO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.24%	-27.86%	-25.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.65%	-27.86%	+20.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-27.40%	+26.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.81%	-10.23%	-15.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.85%	14.56%	-11.71%

Volatility

KBA vs. CGRO - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) have volatilities of 7.29% and 7.67%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KBA	CGRO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.29%	7.67%	-0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.44%	15.53%	-3.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.65%	22.47%	-4.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.20%	28.99%	-1.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.32%	28.99%	-3.67%

KBA vs. CGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison

KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CGRO's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

KBA vs. CGRO - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, less than CGRO's 3.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.30%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.39%	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 KBA and CGRO in my portfolio?

KBA and CGRO have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KBA or CGRO?

CGRO has higher volatility (7.67%) compared to KBA (7.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs CGRO's -27.86%.

Which ETF is better, KBA or CGRO?

On 1-year performance, KBA leads with 49.12% vs -8.71% for CGRO. On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, KBA has been the lower-risk option at 7.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KBA or CGRO?

Over the 1-year period, KBA has performed better with a 49.12% return vs -8.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KBA or CGRO?

KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

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

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.30%, compared with 1.39% for KBA.

What is the main difference between KBA and CGRO?

They also come from different issuers: CICC and CoreValues Alpha. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.75% for CGRO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs -0.39), 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.