KBA vs. MMKT

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and MMKT (Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KBA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Index, while MMKT is a Money Market fund actively managed by Texas Capital. KBA is passively managed, while MMKT is actively managed. Over the past year, KBA returned 33.21% vs 3.70% for MMKT. Their -0.10 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for MMKT.

Performance

KBA vs. MMKT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF (MMKT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KBA achieves a 8.41% return, which is significantly higher than MMKT's 2.06% return.

KBA

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.69%
• 6M: 10.09%
• YTD: 8.41%
• 1Y: 33.21%
• 3Y*: 12.81%
• 5Y*: 7.02%
• 10Y*: 9.46%
• ALL TIME*: 9.62%

MMKT

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.31%
• 6M: 1.75%
• YTD: 2.06%
• 1Y: 3.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.01%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	$934.15K	$880.64K	$2.07M
MMKT Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF	$580.98K	$555.61K	$727.31K

KBA vs. MMKT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	8.41%	33.88%	3.40%
MMKT Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF	2.06%	4.13%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and MMKT is -0.18, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2024	-0.10

Return for Risk

KBA vs. MMKT — Risk / Return Rank

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

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 65
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 56
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 68

MMKT

MMKT Risk / Return Rank: 100
MMKT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Omega Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
MMKT Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. MMKT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF (MMKT). 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	MMKT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	17.54	-15.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	69.83	-67.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	19.26	-17.97
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.00	152.70	-148.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.39	1,128.57	-1,119.18

KBA vs. MMKT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KBA Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is lower than the MMKT Sharpe Ratio of 17.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and MMKT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

KBA vs. MMKT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, which is greater than MMKT's maximum drawdown of -0.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and MMKT.

Drawdown Indicators

	KBA	MMKT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.24%	-0.04%	-53.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.33%	-0.02%	-8.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.37%	0.00%	-5.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.51%	0.00%	-25.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.55%	0.00%	+3.55%

Volatility

KBA vs. MMKT - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) has a higher volatility of 7.88% compared to Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF (MMKT) at 0.06%. This indicates that KBA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MMKT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KBA	MMKT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.88%	0.06%	+7.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.43%	0.13%	+16.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.85%	0.21%	+20.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.34%	0.23%	+27.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.50%	0.23%	+25.27%

KBA vs. MMKT - Expense Ratio Comparison

KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than MMKT's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

KBA vs. MMKT - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than MMKT's 3.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.44%	1.56%	2.18%	2.34%	49.05%	9.07%	0.65%	1.53%	3.77%	1.46%	6.62%	29.08%
MMKT Texas Capital Government Money Market ETF	3.64%	3.98%	1.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KBA and MMKT in my portfolio?

KBA and MMKT have a correlation of -0.18, 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 MMKT?

KBA has higher volatility (7.88%) compared to MMKT (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs MMKT's -0.04%.

Which ETF is better, KBA or MMKT?

On 1-year performance, KBA leads with 33.21% vs 3.70% for MMKT. On fees, MMKT is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, MMKT has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KBA or MMKT?

Over the 1-year period, KBA has performed better with a 33.21% return vs 3.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KBA or MMKT?

MMKT is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for KBA.

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

MMKT has the higher dividend yield at 3.64%, compared with 1.44% for KBA.

What is the main difference between KBA and MMKT?

KBA is categorized as China Equities, while MMKT is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: CICC and Texas Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.20% for MMKT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMKT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (17.54 vs 1.60), 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.