KLIP vs. OBOR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

KLIP (KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF) and OBOR (KraneShares MSCI One Belt One Road Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KLIP is a Options Trading fund managed by CICC, while OBOR is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Global China Infrastructure Exposure. Over the past 3 years, KLIP returned 6.07%/yr vs 11.90%/yr for OBOR. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KLIP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for OBOR.

Performance

KLIP vs. OBOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF (KLIP) and KraneShares MSCI One Belt One Road Index ETF (OBOR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KLIP achieves a -12.64% return, which is significantly lower than OBOR's 1.83% return.

KLIP

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: -3.96%
• YTD: -12.64%
• 6M: -14.80%
• 1Y: -5.67%
• 3Y*: 6.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

OBOR

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -0.36%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 19.70%
• 3Y*: 11.90%
• 5Y*: 1.25%
• 10Y*: —

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

KLIP vs. OBOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
KLIP KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF	-12.64%	16.92%	3.37%	11.11%
OBOR KraneShares MSCI One Belt One Road Index ETF	1.83%	27.86%	8.55%	-11.74%

Correlation

The correlation between KLIP and OBOR is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2023	0.54

The correlation between KLIP and OBOR shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (1 year) to 0.54 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

KLIP vs. OBOR — Risk / Return Rank

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

KLIP

KLIP Risk / Return Rank: 5
KLIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
KLIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
KLIP Omega Ratio Rank: 5
KLIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
KLIP Martin Ratio Rank: 5

OBOR

OBOR Risk / Return Rank: 32
OBOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
OBOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
OBOR Omega Ratio Rank: 34
OBOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
OBOR Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

KLIP vs. OBOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF (KLIP) and KraneShares MSCI One Belt One Road Index ETF (OBOR). 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.

	KLIP	OBOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.35	1.19	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.38	1.64	-2.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.22	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.32	1.48	-1.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.76	4.15	-4.91

KLIP vs. OBOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLIP Sharpe Ratio is -0.35, which is lower than the OBOR Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLIP and OBOR, 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

KLIP vs. OBOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLIP drawdown since its inception was -18.61%, smaller than the maximum OBOR drawdown of -41.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLIP and OBOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLIP	OBOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.61%	-41.54%	+22.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.65%	-13.38%	-4.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.61%	-18.06%	-0.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.65%	-10.16%	-7.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.95%	-15.94%	+11.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.49%	4.76%	+2.73%

Volatility

KLIP vs. OBOR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF (KLIP) is 5.80%, while KraneShares MSCI One Belt One Road Index ETF (OBOR) has a volatility of 6.70%. This indicates that KLIP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OBOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KLIP	OBOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.80%	6.70%	-0.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.09%	14.70%	-1.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.12%	16.72%	-0.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.10%	16.18%	+1.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.10%	18.54%	-0.44%

KLIP vs. OBOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLIP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than OBOR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

KLIP vs. OBOR - Dividend Comparison

KLIP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 29.68%, more than OBOR's 1.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
KLIP KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF	29.68%	25.14%	54.26%	61.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
OBOR KraneShares MSCI One Belt One Road Index ETF	1.91%	1.94%	3.87%	3.40%	4.75%	3.26%	2.04%	4.33%	0.02%	0.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KLIP and OBOR in my portfolio?

KLIP and OBOR have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KLIP or OBOR?

OBOR has higher volatility (6.70%) compared to KLIP (5.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLIP dropped -18.61% vs OBOR's -41.54%.

Which ETF is better, KLIP or OBOR?

On 3-year performance, OBOR leads with 11.90% vs 6.07% for KLIP. On fees, OBOR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, KLIP has been the lower-risk option at 5.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLIP or OBOR?

Over the 3-year period, OBOR has performed better with a 11.90% return vs 6.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLIP or OBOR?

OBOR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for KLIP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KLIP or OBOR?

KLIP has the higher dividend yield at 29.68%, compared with 1.91% for OBOR.

What is the main difference between KLIP and OBOR?

KLIP is categorized as Options Trading, while OBOR is Emerging Markets Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for KLIP and 0.79% for OBOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OBOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs -0.35), 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.