KBA vs. NBCE

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

KBA (KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF) and NBCE (Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF) are both China Equities funds. KBA is passively managed, while NBCE is actively managed. Over the past year, KBA returned 45.45% vs 68.17% for NBCE. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KBA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for NBCE.

Performance

KBA vs. NBCE - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KBA achieves a 10.36% return, which is significantly lower than NBCE's 32.09% return.

KBA

• 1D: -3.67%
• 1M: 2.74%
• YTD: 10.36%
• 6M: 10.50%
• 1Y: 45.45%
• 3Y*: 16.25%
• 5Y*: 6.66%
• 10Y*: 10.40%

NBCE

• 1D: -3.12%
• 1M: 7.62%
• YTD: 32.09%
• 6M: 32.92%
• 1Y: 68.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KBA vs. NBCE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	10.36%	33.88%	15.73%	-4.35%
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	32.09%	39.08%	3.35%	-2.22%

Correlation

The correlation between KBA and NBCE is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 16, 2023	0.87

The correlation between KBA and NBCE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

KBA vs. NBCE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KBA	NBCE
Technology	34.1%	33.7%
Financial Services	17.4%	14.0%
Industrials	15.4%	17.7%
Basic Materials	9.3%	11.7%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	4.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.4%	6.8%
Healthcare	3.7%	4.2%
Utilities	3.2%	1.6%
Energy	3.0%	3.7%
Communication Services	1.4%	0.9%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.5%

Return for Risk

KBA vs. NBCE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

KBA

KBA Risk / Return Rank: 81
KBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
KBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
KBA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
KBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
KBA Martin Ratio Rank: 81

NBCE

NBCE Risk / Return Rank: 94
NBCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
NBCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
NBCE Omega Ratio Rank: 92
NBCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
NBCE Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. NBCE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) and Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE). 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	NBCE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	3.36	-0.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.21	4.21	-1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.58	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.97	7.43	-1.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.15	24.33	-9.19

KBA vs. NBCE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KBA Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the NBCE Sharpe Ratio of 3.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KBA and NBCE, 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. NBCE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KBA drawdown since its inception was -53.24%, which is greater than NBCE's maximum drawdown of -28.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KBA and NBCE.

Drawdown Indicators

	KBA	NBCE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.24%	-28.42%	-24.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.65%	-9.23%	+1.58%
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	-3.67%	-3.12%	-0.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.71%	-8.98%	-16.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.01%	2.81%	+0.20%

Volatility

KBA vs. NBCE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF (KBA) is 8.89%, while Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE) has a volatility of 9.69%. This indicates that KBA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NBCE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KBA	NBCE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.89%	9.69%	-0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.20%	15.74%	-1.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.00%	20.40%	-1.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.35%	24.39%	+2.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.39%	24.39%	+1.00%

KBA vs. NBCE - Expense Ratio Comparison

KBA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than NBCE's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

KBA vs. NBCE - Dividend Comparison

KBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, more than NBCE's 1.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
KBA KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF	1.42%	1.56%	2.18%	2.34%	49.05%	9.07%	0.65%	1.53%	3.77%	1.46%	6.62%	29.08%
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	1.00%	1.32%	1.20%	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 NBCE in my portfolio?

KBA and NBCE have a correlation of 0.82, 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 NBCE?

NBCE has higher volatility (9.69%) compared to KBA (8.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KBA dropped -53.24% vs NBCE's -28.42%.

Which ETF is better, KBA or NBCE?

On 1-year performance, NBCE leads with 68.17% vs 45.45% for KBA. On fees, KBA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, KBA has been the lower-risk option at 8.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KBA or NBCE?

Over the 1-year period, NBCE has performed better with a 68.17% return vs 45.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KBA or NBCE?

KBA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for NBCE.

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

KBA has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 1.00% for NBCE.

What is the main difference between KBA and NBCE?

They also come from different issuers: CICC and Neuberger Berman. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for KBA and 0.74% for NBCE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBCE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 vs 2.40), 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.