KBA vs. CNQQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

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. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CNQQ.

Performance

KBA vs. CNQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with KBA having a 10.36% return and CNQQ slightly lower at 10.04%.

KBA

• 1D: -3.67%
• 1M: 2.74%
• YTD: 10.36%
• 6M: 10.50%
• 1Y: 45.45%
• 3Y*: 16.25%
• 5Y*: 6.66%
• 10Y*: 10.40%

CNQQ

• 1D: -3.47%
• 1M: 1.11%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KBA vs. CNQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	10.36%	4.93%
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF	10.04%	-5.22%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and CNQQ is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 26, 2025	0.80

Return for Risk

KBA vs. CNQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 81
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 81

CNQQ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. 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.

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.

	KBA	CNQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.21	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.97	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.15	—	—

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	KBA	CNQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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	-39.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.67%	-3.47%	-0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.71%	-8.81%	-16.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.01%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	KBA	CNQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.89%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.20%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.00%	25.33%	-6.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.35%	25.33%	+2.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.39%	25.33%	+0.06%

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 1.42%, 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	1.42%	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 CNQQ in my portfolio?

KBA and CNQQ have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, KBA or CNQQ?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, KBA or CNQQ?

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

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

KBA has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.23% for CNQQ.

What is the main difference between KBA and 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.