KBA vs. CNQQ
KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and CNQQ (Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF) are both China Equities funds - KBA tracks the MSCI China A Index while CNQQ tracks the Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CNQQ.
Performance
KBA vs. CNQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with KBA having a 12.62% return and CNQQ slightly lower at 12.03%.
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%
CNQQ
- 1D
- 3.82%
- 1M
- 7.31%
- YTD
- 12.03%
- 6M
- 12.59%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
KBA vs. CNQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF | 12.62% | 6.28% |
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 12.03% | -5.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between KBA and CNQQ is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2025 | 0.81 |
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
KBA vs. CNQQ — Risk / Return Rank
KBA
CNQQ
KBA vs. CNQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ). 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 | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.80 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.80 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.45 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 17.29 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| KBA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.80 | — | — |
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 | 0.33 | +0.03 |
Drawdowns
KBA vs. CNQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, which is greater than CNQQ's maximum drawdown of -17.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and CNQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KBA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.24% | -17.82% | -35.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.65% | — | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.25% | -1.09% | -0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -25.81% | -9.28% | -16.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.85% | — | — |
Volatility
KBA vs. CNQQ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KBA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.29% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.44% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.65% | 24.50% | -6.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.20% | 24.50% | +2.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.32% | 24.50% | +0.82% |
KBA vs. CNQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CNQQ's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
KBA vs. CNQQ - Dividend Comparison
KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, more than CNQQ's 0.23% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 0.23% | 0.09% | 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 | 1.39% | 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
KBA and CNQQ have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CNQQ.
KBA has the higher dividend yield at 1.39%, compared with 0.23% for CNQQ.
KBA tracks MSCI China A Index, while CNQQ tracks Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech. They also come from different issuers: CICC and Rayliant. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.75% for CNQQ.
Find the right allocation for KBA and CNQQ
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