KBA vs. KURE
KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and KURE (KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF) are both China Equities funds from CICC - KBA tracks the MSCI China A Index while KURE tracks the MSCI China All Shares Health Care 10/40 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, KBA returned 6.35%/yr vs -12.95%/yr for KURE. Their 0.67 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for KURE.
Performance
KBA vs. KURE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KBA achieves a 6.21% return, which is significantly higher than KURE's 0.26% 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%
KURE
- 1D
- -1.13%
- 1M
- 3.83%
- 6M
- -1.87%
- YTD
- 0.26%
- 1Y
- -8.42%
- 3Y*
- -0.55%
- 5Y*
- -12.95%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -2.00%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $823.16K | $863.47K | $2.10M | |
| $464.90K | $1.53M | $860.94K |
KBA vs. KURE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF | 6.21% | 33.88% | 15.73% | -16.77% | -3.49% | 3.17% | 41.62% | 35.44% | -33.59% |
KURE KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF | 0.26% | 24.87% | -17.83% | -17.70% | -25.43% | -16.01% | 68.97% | 34.30% | -30.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between KBA and KURE is 0.46, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.46 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.60 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2018 | 0.67 |
Over the past year, the correlation between KBA and KURE has dropped to 0.46 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
KBA vs. KURE - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
KBA
KURE
Technology
-
Financial Services
-
Industrials
-
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Defensive
Consumer Cyclical
-
Healthcare
Utilities
-
Energy
-
Communication Services
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
KBA
KURE
-
Financial Services
KBA
KURE
-
Industrials
KBA
KURE
-
Basic Materials
KBA
KURE
-
Consumer Defensive
KBA
KURE
Consumer Cyclical
KBA
KURE
-
Healthcare
KBA
KURE
Utilities
KBA
KURE
-
Energy
KBA
KURE
-
Communication Services
KBA
KURE
-
Real Estate
KBA
KURE
-
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. KURE — Risk / Return Rank
KBA
KURE
KBA vs. KURE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (KURE). 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 | KURE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.89 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.46 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 0.97 | +0.31 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.97 | -0.27 | +4.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.40 | -0.52 | +9.92 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
KBA vs. KURE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, smaller than the maximum KURE drawdown of -68.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and KURE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KBA | KURE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.24% | -68.53% | +15.29% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.33% | -30.88% | +22.55% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -31.23% | -34.05% | +2.82% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -39.76% | -63.73% | +23.97% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.32% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.29% | -56.34% | +49.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -25.53% | -38.44% | +12.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.51% | 16.11% | -12.60% |
Volatility
KBA vs. KURE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) is 7.91%, while KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (KURE) has a volatility of 10.95%. This indicates that KBA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KURE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KBA | KURE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.91% | 10.95% | -3.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.42% | 20.76% | -4.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.87% | 28.28% | -7.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.34% | 31.44% | -4.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.51% | 32.43% | -6.92% |
KBA vs. KURE - Expense Ratio Comparison
KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than KURE's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
KBA vs. KURE - Dividend Comparison
KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than KURE's 4.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
KURE KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF | 4.18% | 4.19% | 1.29% | 0.65% | 0.05% | 14.12% | 0.00% | 0.25% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
KBA and KURE have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
KURE has higher volatility (10.95%) compared to KBA (7.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs KURE's -68.53%.
On 5-year performance, KBA leads with 6.35% vs -12.95% for KURE. On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, KBA has been the lower-risk option at 7.91%. 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 6.35% return vs -12.95%. 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 0.65% for KURE.
KURE has the higher dividend yield at 4.18%, compared with 1.47% for KBA.
KBA tracks MSCI China A Index, while KURE tracks MSCI China All Shares Health Care 10/40 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.65% for KURE.
KBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs -0.30), 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.
Find the right allocation for KBA and KURE
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