KBA vs QQQ
KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A 50 Connect Index ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | KBA | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.56% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $148M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.46% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 55 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +5.26% | +16.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +23.63% | +26.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.48% | +25.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.87% | +14.78% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 23.8% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | KraneShares | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 4, 2014 | Mar 10, 1999 |
KBA vs QQQ Performance
KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A 50 Connect Index ETF (KBA) is a ETF from KraneShares and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year KBA returned +23.63% while QQQ returned +26.23%. Year to date, KBA is up 5.26% versus a gain of 16.23% for QQQ.
Over three years, KBA compounded at +15.48% per year against +25.75% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are -0.87% and +14.78% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.02% annualized vs +5.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 23.8% for KBA. 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 KBA and -83.0% for QQQ. 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
KBA charges 0.56% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $56 vs $18 annually, a gap of $38 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, KBA currently yields 1.46% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
KBA and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 152 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, KBA or QQQ?
KBA has an expense ratio of 0.56% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $38 per year of difference.
Which performed better, KBA or QQQ?
Over the past year KBA returned +23.63% vs +26.23% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), KBA annualized +5.91% vs +13.02% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, KBA or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 23.8% for KBA. Worst drawdown: KBA -56.5% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both KBA and QQQ?
KBA and QQQ 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 KBA and QQQ?
KBA and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 152 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, KBA or QQQ?
KBA yields 1.46% while QQQ yields 0.44%, 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.