KBA vs. CQQQ

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ).

KBA and CQQQ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. KBA is a passively managed fund by CICC that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Index. It was launched on Mar 5, 2014. CQQQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the AlphaShares China Technology Index. It was launched on Dec 8, 2009. Both KBA and CQQQ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

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.

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	-2.07%	33.88%	15.73%	-16.77%	-3.49%	3.17%	41.62%	35.44%	-26.28%	30.69%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	-11.50%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-34.77%	74.31%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KBA achieves a -2.07% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -11.50% return. Over the past 10 years, KBA has outperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 8.14%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively lower 3.76% annualized return.

KBA

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: -1.37%
• YTD: -2.07%
• 6M: 2.24%
• 1Y: 30.16%
• 3Y*: 7.43%
• 5Y*: 5.20%
• 10Y*: 8.14%

CQQQ

• 1D: 2.91%
• 1M: -11.62%
• YTD: -11.50%
• 6M: -20.29%
• 1Y: 6.15%
• 3Y*: 0.59%
• 5Y*: -10.73%
• 10Y*: 3.76%

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

KBA vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

CQQQ

Invesco China Technology ETF

KBA

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF

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: 86
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 86

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 18
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 20
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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	1.63	0.19	+1.43
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.20	0.51	+1.69
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.06	+0.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.54	0.23	+2.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.01	0.63	+9.37
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 1.63, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and CQQQ, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	KBA	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.63	0.19	+1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19	-0.29	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.32	0.11	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	0.16	+0.16

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and CQQQ is 0.68, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

KBA vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.60%, less than CQQQ's 2.45% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.60%	1.56%	2.18%	2.34%	49.05%	9.07%	0.65%	1.53%	3.77%	1.46%	6.62%	29.08%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.45%	2.17%	0.28%	0.55%	0.08%	0.00%	0.47%	0.01%	0.43%	1.41%	1.69%	1.77%

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	-11.30%	-24.41%	+13.11%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.42%	-67.04%	+26.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.32%	-73.99%	+28.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.08%	-56.10%	+51.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.15%	-28.04%	+1.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.01%	8.99%	-5.98%

Volatility

KBA vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) is 5.63%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.60%. 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	5.63%	10.60%	-4.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.80%	20.75%	-8.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.64%	31.95%	-13.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.07%	37.72%	-10.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.28%	33.06%	-7.78%