IVV vs KBA
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A 50 Connect Index ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. KBA delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | KBA | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.56% | |
| AUM | $907.0B | $148M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 1.46% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 55 | |
| YTD Return | +13.22% | +5.65% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.62% | +26.66% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.17% | +15.64% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.42% | -1.15% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 23.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | KraneShares | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Mar 4, 2014 |
IVV vs KBA Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A 50 Connect Index ETF (KBA) is a ETF from KraneShares. Over the past year IVV returned +21.62% while KBA returned +26.66%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.22% versus a gain of 5.65% for KBA.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.17% per year against +15.64% for KBA; over five years the annualized figures are +13.42% and -1.15% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.02% annualized vs +5.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
KBA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.8% compared with 15.1% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -56.5% for IVV and -56.5% for KBA. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.35. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while KBA charges 0.56%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $56 annually, a gap of $53 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.10% against 1.46% for KBA.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and KBA share 0 holdings out of 555 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or KBA?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while KBA charges 0.56%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $53 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or KBA?
Over the past year IVV returned +21.62% vs +26.66% for KBA, so KBA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), IVV annualized +7.02% vs +5.94% for KBA. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or KBA?
KBA has been the more volatile fund at 23.8% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs KBA -56.5%.
Should I hold both IVV and KBA?
IVV and KBA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.35, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and KBA?
IVV and KBA share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 555 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or KBA?
IVV yields 1.10% while KBA yields 1.46%, so KBA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.