MCHI vs. KCAI

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

MCHI (iShares MSCI China ETF) and KCAI (KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF) are both China Equities funds - MCHI tracks the MSCI China Index while KCAI tracks the Qi China Alpha Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, MCHI returned -0.55% vs 37.98% for KCAI. Their 0.61 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MCHI charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KCAI.

Performance

MCHI vs. KCAI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI) and KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCHI achieves a -6.01% return, which is significantly lower than KCAI's 6.89% return.

MCHI

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 10.17%
• 6M: -7.55%
• YTD: -6.01%
• 1Y: -0.55%
• 3Y*: 8.08%
• 5Y*: -2.78%
• 10Y*: 4.06%
• ALL TIME*: 2.52%

KCAI

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 4.13%
• 6M: 7.47%
• YTD: 6.89%
• 1Y: 37.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 36.50%

*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)
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	$40.34K	$24.89K	$160.72K
MCHI iShares MSCI China ETF	$131.82M	$143.06M	$173.02M

MCHI vs. KCAI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCHI iShares MSCI China ETF	-6.01%	31.04%	14.09%
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	6.89%	53.29%	11.36%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHI and KCAI is 0.54, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2024	0.61

The correlation between MCHI and KCAI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCHI vs. KCAI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCHI	KCAI
Consumer Cyclical	22.4%	9.4%
Communication Services	19.3%	-
Financial Services	19.2%	41.3%
Technology	13.9%	17.8%
Industrials	5.4%	20.5%
Healthcare	5.3%	1.3%
Basic Materials	5.1%	11.0%
Energy	3.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Real Estate	1.5%	-

Return for Risk

MCHI vs. KCAI — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCHI

MCHI Risk / Return Rank: 10
MCHI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
MCHI Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
MCHI Omega Ratio Rank: 10
MCHI Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
MCHI Martin Ratio Rank: 10

KCAI

KCAI Risk / Return Rank: 94
KCAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
KCAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
KCAI Omega Ratio Rank: 91
KCAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
KCAI Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

MCHI vs. KCAI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI) and KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI). 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.

	MCHI	KCAI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	2.69	-2.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.11	3.91	-3.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.47	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.02	6.47	-6.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.05	19.23	-19.27

MCHI vs. KCAI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHI Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is lower than the KCAI Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHI and KCAI, 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

MCHI vs. KCAI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHI drawdown since its inception was -62.95%, which is greater than KCAI's maximum drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHI and KCAI.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHI	KCAI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.95%	-25.48%	-37.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.22%	-5.90%	-17.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.35%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.41%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-62.95%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.91%	-2.01%	-33.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.68%	-6.81%	-17.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.34%	1.98%	+9.36%

Volatility

MCHI vs. KCAI - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI) has a higher volatility of 5.01% compared to KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) at 4.61%. This indicates that MCHI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KCAI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCHI	KCAI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	4.61%	+0.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.41%	9.79%	+4.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.55%	14.18%	+6.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.40%	20.76%	+9.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.35%	20.76%	+6.59%

MCHI vs. KCAI - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCHI has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than KCAI's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCHI vs. KCAI - Dividend Comparison

MCHI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, less than KCAI's 33.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	33.14%	35.42%	2.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MCHI iShares MSCI China ETF	1.95%	2.12%	2.31%	2.66%	1.78%	1.04%	1.04%	1.45%	1.60%	1.56%	1.66%	2.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCHI and KCAI in my portfolio?

MCHI and KCAI have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCHI or KCAI?

MCHI has higher volatility (5.01%) compared to KCAI (4.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHI dropped -62.95% vs KCAI's -25.48%.

Which ETF is better, MCHI or KCAI?

On 1-year performance, KCAI leads with 37.98% vs -0.55% for MCHI. On fees, MCHI is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, KCAI has been the lower-risk option at 4.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCHI or KCAI?

Over the 1-year period, KCAI has performed better with a 37.98% return vs -0.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHI or KCAI?

MCHI is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KCAI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MCHI or KCAI?

KCAI has the higher dividend yield at 33.14%, compared with 1.95% for MCHI.

What is the main difference between MCHI and KCAI?

MCHI tracks MSCI China Index, while KCAI tracks Qi China Alpha Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MCHI and 0.79% for KCAI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KCAI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs -0.03), 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.