KURE.L vs. WHCE.L
KURE.L (KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD) and WHCE.L (Invesco S&P World Health Care ESG UCITS ETF Acc) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds - KURE.L tracks the MSCI World/Health Care NR USD while WHCE.L tracks the S&P World ESG Enhanced Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, KURE.L returned -10.89% vs 11.99% for WHCE.L. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. KURE.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for WHCE.L.
Performance
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KURE.L achieves a -10.68% return, which is significantly lower than WHCE.L's -4.23% return.
KURE.L
- 1D
- -2.87%
- 1M
- -12.38%
- YTD
- -10.68%
- 6M
- -19.51%
- 1Y
- -10.89%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
WHCE.L
- 1D
- 2.89%
- 1M
- 3.76%
- YTD
- -4.23%
- 6M
- -2.86%
- 1Y
- 11.99%
- 3Y*
- 5.96%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
KURE.L KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD | -10.68% | 11.52% |
WHCE.L Invesco S&P World Health Care ESG UCITS ETF Acc | -4.23% | 14.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between KURE.L and WHCE.L is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2025 | 0.24 |
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
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L — Risk / Return Rank
KURE.L
WHCE.L
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD (KURE.L) and Invesco S&P World Health Care ESG UCITS ETF Acc (WHCE.L). 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.
| KURE.L | WHCE.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.55 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.97 | 1.14 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.29 | 0.96 | -1.25 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.58 | 2.51 | -3.09 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| KURE.L | WHCE.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.33 | 0.76 | -1.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.01 | 0.35 | -0.36 |
Drawdowns
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum KURE.L drawdown since its inception was -30.31%, which is greater than WHCE.L's maximum drawdown of -20.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KURE.L and WHCE.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KURE.L | WHCE.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.31% | -20.11% | -10.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.31% | -12.46% | -17.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -20.11% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.31% | -7.25% | -23.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.49% | -6.13% | -5.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.98% | 4.76% | +10.22% |
Volatility
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Volatility Comparison
KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index UCITS ETF USD (KURE.L) has a higher volatility of 7.23% compared to Invesco S&P World Health Care ESG UCITS ETF Acc (WHCE.L) at 5.21%. This indicates that KURE.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WHCE.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KURE.L | WHCE.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.23% | 5.21% | +2.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.31% | 11.59% | +6.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.92% | 15.65% | +11.27% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 26.64% | 13.98% | +12.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.64% | 13.98% | +12.66% |
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
KURE.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than WHCE.L's 0.18% expense ratio.
Dividends
KURE.L vs. WHCE.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither KURE.L nor WHCE.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
KURE.L and WHCE.L have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, WHCE.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
WHCE.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for KURE.L.
KURE.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD, while WHCE.L tracks S&P World ESG Enhanced Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: MLC Management and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for KURE.L and 0.18% for WHCE.L.
Find the right allocation for KURE.L and WHCE.L
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