PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
KBA vs. FCA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

KBA vs. FCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KBA achieves a 6.21% return, which is significantly higher than FCA's -2.52% return. Over the past 10 years, KBA has outperformed FCA with an annualized return of 9.23%, while FCA has yielded a comparatively lower 7.64% annualized return.


KBA

1D
-0.88%
1M
0.24%
6M
7.78%
YTD
6.21%
1Y
32.90%
3Y*
12.04%
5Y*
6.35%
10Y*
9.23%
ALL TIME*
9.44%

FCA

1D
-0.80%
1M
2.06%
6M
-12.24%
YTD
-2.52%
1Y
11.09%
3Y*
14.32%
5Y*
2.73%
10Y*
7.64%
ALL TIME*
2.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$160.45K$273.90K$1.98M
$823.16K$863.47K$2.10M

KBA vs. FCA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
KBA
KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF
6.21%33.88%15.73%-16.77%-3.49%3.17%41.62%35.44%-26.28%30.69%
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund
-2.52%45.20%14.07%-8.28%-17.61%-0.65%11.80%18.72%-18.30%60.26%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and FCA is 0.58, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.58

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.60

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.59

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 5, 2014

0.57

The correlation between KBA and FCA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

KBA vs. FCA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
KBA
FCA

Technology

37.5%
15.2%

Financial Services

16.9%
21.0%

Industrials

14.4%
22.3%

Basic Materials

10.1%
17.2%

Consumer Defensive

5.8%
0.5%

Consumer Cyclical

4.1%
1.0%

Healthcare

4.0%
3.2%

Utilities

3.2%
2.4%

Energy

2.4%
13.5%

Communication Services

1.2%
2.7%

Real Estate

0.4%
1.0%

Technology

KBA
37.5%
FCA
15.2%

Financial Services

KBA
16.9%
FCA
21.0%

Industrials

KBA
14.4%
FCA
22.3%

Basic Materials

KBA
10.1%
FCA
17.2%

Consumer Defensive

KBA
5.8%
FCA
0.5%

Consumer Cyclical

KBA
4.1%
FCA
1.0%

Healthcare

KBA
4.0%
FCA
3.2%

Utilities

KBA
3.2%
FCA
2.4%

Energy

KBA
2.4%
FCA
13.5%

Communication Services

KBA
1.2%
FCA
2.7%

Real Estate

KBA
0.4%
FCA
1.0%

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. FCA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

KBA
KBA Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

FCA
FCA Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
FCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
FCA Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
FCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
FCA Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

KBA vs. FCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA). 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.


KBAFCADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.44

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.10

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.97

0.46

+3.50

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.40

1.31

+8.09

KBA vs. FCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KBA Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is higher than the FCA Sharpe Ratio of 0.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and FCA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

KBA vs. FCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, which is greater than FCA's maximum drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and FCA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


KBAFCADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.24%

-45.56%

-7.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.33%

-24.11%

+15.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-31.23%

-26.13%

-5.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.76%

-42.47%

+2.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.32%

-42.47%

-2.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.29%

-20.36%

+13.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.53%

-21.60%

-3.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.51%

8.47%

-4.96%

Volatility

KBA vs. FCA - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a higher volatility of 7.91% compared to First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) at 5.93%. This indicates that KBA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


KBAFCADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.91%

5.93%

+1.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.42%

17.73%

-1.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.87%

23.38%

-2.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.34%

27.76%

-0.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.51%

26.75%

-1.24%

KBA vs. FCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than FCA's 0.80% expense ratio.


Dividends

KBA vs. FCA - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than FCA's 2.90% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund
2.90%2.67%5.17%5.70%6.00%4.91%4.12%3.73%3.10%2.30%2.51%4.13%
KBA
KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF
1.47%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 FCA have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

KBA has higher volatility (7.91%) compared to FCA (5.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs FCA's -45.56%.

On 10-year performance, KBA leads with 9.23% vs 7.64% for FCA. On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FCA has been the lower-risk option at 5.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, KBA has performed better with a 9.23% return vs 7.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FCA.

FCA has the higher dividend yield at 2.90%, compared with 1.47% for KBA.

KBA tracks MSCI China A Index, while FCA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index. They also come from different issuers: CICC and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.80% for FCA.

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 0.48), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for KBA and FCA

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