PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
KBA vs. KMLM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

KBA vs. KMLM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and KMLM (KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KBA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Index, while KMLM is a Long-Short fund actively managed by CICC. KBA is passively managed, while KMLM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, KBA returned 6.46%/yr vs 4.33%/yr for KMLM. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for KMLM.

Performance

KBA vs. KMLM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF (KMLM). 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 12.62% return, which is significantly higher than KMLM's 10.79% 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%

KMLM

1D
0.17%
1M
-2.41%
YTD
10.79%
6M
13.19%
1Y
13.68%
3Y*
-0.47%
5Y*
4.33%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

KBA vs. KMLM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
KBA
KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF		12.62%33.88%15.73%-16.77%-3.49%3.17%4.26%
KMLM
KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF		10.79%-2.98%-1.69%-5.66%30.61%7.04%5.40%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and KMLM is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.03

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.03

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.06

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2020

-0.05

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF

KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF

Often compared with KBA:
KBA vs. ASHRKBA vs. CNYAKBA vs. KGRNKBA vs. EWTKBA vs. MCHIKBA vs. HEZUKBA vs. ASHS
Often compared with KMLM:
KMLM vs. DBMFKMLM vs. SPYKMLM vs. VOOKMLM vs. WTMFKMLM vs. FMFKMLM vs. BTALKMLM vs. CMDY

Return for Risk

KBA vs. KMLM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
KBA
KBA Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank
KMLM
KMLM Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
KMLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KMLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
KMLM Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
KMLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
KMLM Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank
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. KMLM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF (KMLM). 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.

KBAKMLMDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.80

1.20

+1.59

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.80

1.68

+2.11

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.22

+0.29

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

6.45

2.18

+4.27

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

17.29

7.18

+10.11

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. KMLM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KBA Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is higher than the KMLM Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and KMLM, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

KBAKMLMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.80

1.20

+1.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.24

0.30

-0.06

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

0.49

-0.14

Drawdowns

KBA vs. KMLM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, which is greater than KMLM's maximum drawdown of -27.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and KMLM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

KBAKMLMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.24%

-27.47%

-25.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.65%

-6.30%

-1.35%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-31.23%

-22.28%

-8.95%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.95%

-27.47%

-12.48%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.32%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.25%

-13.61%

+12.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.81%

-12.74%

-13.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.85%

1.91%

+0.94%

Volatility

KBA vs. KMLM - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a higher volatility of 7.29% compared to KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF (KMLM) at 4.46%. This indicates that KBA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KMLM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

KBAKMLMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.29%

4.46%

+2.83%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

9.63%

+2.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.65%

11.43%

+6.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.20%

14.62%

+12.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.32%

14.73%

+10.59%

KBA vs. KMLM - Expense Ratio Comparison

KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than KMLM's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

KBA vs. KMLM - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, less than KMLM's 4.53% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
KMLM
KFA Mount Lucas Index Strategy ETF		4.53%5.02%0.82%0.00%13.22%6.94%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

KBA and KMLM have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

KBA has higher volatility (7.29%) compared to KMLM (4.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs KMLM's -27.47%.

On 5-year performance, KBA leads with 6.46% vs 4.33% for KMLM. On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, KMLM has been the lower-risk option at 4.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, KBA has performed better with a 6.46% return vs 4.33%. 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 0.90% for KMLM.

KMLM has the higher dividend yield at 4.53%, compared with 1.39% for KBA.

KBA is categorized as China Equities, while KMLM is Long-Short. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.90% for KMLM.

KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 1.20), 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 KMLM

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