KBA vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds - KBA tracks the MSCI China A Index while CQQQ tracks the AlphaShares China Technology Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, KBA returned 10.15%/yr vs 5.40%/yr for CQQQ. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

KBA vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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 CQQQ's 2.46% return. Over the past 10 years, KBA has outperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 10.15%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively lower 5.40% annualized 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%

CQQQ

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: 4.43%
• YTD: 2.46%
• 6M: 5.43%
• 1Y: 32.76%
• 3Y*: 10.55%
• 5Y*: -7.50%
• 10Y*: 5.40%

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

KBA vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	12.62%	33.88%	15.73%	-16.77%	-3.49%	3.17%	41.62%	35.44%	-26.28%	30.69%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.46%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-34.77%	74.31%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and CQQQ is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2014	0.68

The correlation between KBA and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

KBA vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KBA	CQQQ
Technology	29.8%	58.2%
Financial Services	18.5%	0.1%
Industrials	15.8%	1.3%
Basic Materials	10.9%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	13.8%
Healthcare	4.1%	-
Energy	3.2%	-
Utilities	3.2%	-
Communication Services	1.6%	21.9%
Real Estate	0.6%	-

Return for Risk

KBA vs. CQQQ — 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

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 28
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	1.11	+1.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.80	1.68	+2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.20	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.45	1.35	+5.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.29	3.16	+14.13
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. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KBA Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and CQQQ, 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	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.80	1.11	+1.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24	-0.20	+0.44
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.40	0.16	+0.24
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.19	+0.17

Drawdowns

KBA vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and CQQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	KBA	CQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.24%	-73.99%	+20.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.65%	-24.41%	+16.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.23%	-35.93%	+4.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.95%	-66.96%	+27.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.32%	-73.99%	+28.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-49.18%	+47.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.81%	-28.29%	+2.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.85%	10.39%	-7.54%

Volatility

KBA vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) is 7.29%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 11.60%. This indicates that KBA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KBA	CQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.29%	11.60%	-4.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.44%	21.88%	-9.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.65%	29.78%	-12.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.20%	38.02%	-10.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.32%	33.30%	-7.98%

KBA vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

KBA vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, less than CQQQ's 2.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.11%	2.17%	0.28%	0.55%	0.08%	0.00%	0.47%	0.01%	0.43%	1.41%	1.69%	1.77%
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 CQQQ in my portfolio?

KBA and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.68, 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 CQQQ?

CQQQ has higher volatility (11.60%) compared to KBA (7.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

Which ETF is better, KBA or CQQQ?

On 10-year performance, KBA leads with 10.15% vs 5.40% for CQQQ. 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 CQQQ?

Over the 10-year period, KBA has performed better with a 10.15% return vs 5.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KBA or CQQQ?

KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

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

CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.11%, compared with 1.39% for KBA.

What is the main difference between KBA and CQQQ?

KBA tracks MSCI China A Index, while CQQQ tracks AlphaShares China Technology Index. They also come from different issuers: CICC and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.70% for CQQQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 1.11), 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.