KURE vs. CNYA

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

KURE (KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both China Equities funds - KURE tracks the MSCI China All Shares Health Care 10/40 Index while CNYA tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, KURE returned -16.64%/yr vs -0.39%/yr for CNYA. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KURE charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

KURE vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (KURE) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KURE achieves a -11.03% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 10.91% return.

KURE

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: -5.31%
• YTD: -11.03%
• 6M: -13.96%
• 1Y: -8.07%
• 3Y*: -3.44%
• 5Y*: -16.64%
• 10Y*: —

CNYA

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 1.81%
• YTD: 10.91%
• 6M: 11.36%
• 1Y: 35.33%
• 3Y*: 13.10%
• 5Y*: -0.39%
• 10Y*: 6.74%

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

KURE vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
KURE KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF	-11.03%	24.87%	-17.83%	-17.70%	-25.43%	-16.01%	68.97%	34.30%	-30.01%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	10.91%	26.48%	10.78%	-13.76%	-26.51%	3.53%	41.54%	35.95%	-32.31%

Correlation

The correlation between KURE and CNYA is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2018	0.68

Over the past year, the correlation between KURE and CNYA has dropped to 0.48 - well below their long-term average of 0.68, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

KURE vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KURE	CNYA
Healthcare	99.3%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.7%	6.8%
Basic Materials	-	11.2%
Communication Services	-	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	5.2%
Energy	-	3.1%
Financial Services	-	17.6%
Industrials	-	15.4%
Real Estate	-	0.6%
Technology	-	31.7%
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

KURE vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

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

KURE

KURE Risk / Return Rank: 7
KURE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
KURE Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
KURE Omega Ratio Rank: 6
KURE Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
KURE Martin Ratio Rank: 7

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 74
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

KURE vs. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (KURE) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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.

	KURE	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.31	1.94	-2.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.26	2.66	-2.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.35	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.26	4.68	-4.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.54	12.82	-13.36

KURE vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KURE Sharpe Ratio is -0.31, which is lower than the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KURE and CNYA, 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

KURE vs. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KURE drawdown since its inception was -68.53%, which is greater than CNYA's maximum drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KURE and CNYA.

Drawdown Indicators

	KURE	CNYA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.53%	-49.49%	-19.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.88%	-7.59%	-23.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.05%	-33.35%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-67.94%	-44.65%	-23.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-49.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-61.26%	-12.14%	-49.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.22%	-20.64%	-17.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.85%	2.76%	+12.09%

Volatility

KURE vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF (KURE) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) have volatilities of 7.54% and 7.38%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KURE	CNYA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.54%	7.38%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.04%	13.62%	+4.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.09%	18.33%	+7.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.85%	23.92%	+7.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.32%	23.52%	+8.80%

KURE vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

KURE has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

KURE vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

KURE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.71%, more than CNYA's 1.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.69%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%
KURE KraneShares MSCI All China Health Care Index ETF	4.71%	4.19%	1.29%	0.65%	0.05%	14.12%	0.00%	0.25%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KURE and CNYA in my portfolio?

KURE and CNYA have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KURE or CNYA?

KURE has higher volatility (7.54%) compared to CNYA (7.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KURE dropped -68.53% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

Which ETF is better, KURE or CNYA?

On 5-year performance, CNYA leads with -0.39% vs -16.64% for KURE. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CNYA has been the lower-risk option at 7.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KURE or CNYA?

Over the 5-year period, CNYA has performed better with a -0.39% return vs -16.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KURE or CNYA?

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for KURE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KURE or CNYA?

KURE has the higher dividend yield at 4.71%, compared with 1.69% for CNYA.

What is the main difference between KURE and CNYA?

KURE tracks MSCI China All Shares Health Care 10/40 Index, while CNYA tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: CICC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for KURE and 0.60% for CNYA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNYA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs -0.31), 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.