Skip to content
Beacon
Screener

KLIP vs KWEB

KraneShares KWEB Covered Call Strategy ETF vs KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF

KLIP

KraneShares KWEB Covered Call Strategy ETF

KraneShares

Annual cost

0.95%

Fund size

$114M

KWEB

KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF

KraneShares

Annual cost

0.70%

Fund size

$6.3B

Key differences

  • KWEB costs 0.25% less per year.
  • KWEB is significantly larger than KLIP — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
  • KLIP is classified as alternative, while KWEB is equity — different risk/return profiles.
  • KLIP covers north america markets; KWEB covers emerging markets.
  • KLIP follows a option income strategy; KWEB uses index tracking.
  • Over the last 3 years, KLIP has delivered higher annualized returns.
  • KWEB has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.

Side-by-side comparison

KLIPKWEB
Annual cost (TER)0.95%0.70%
Fund size (AUM)$114M$6.3B
Since20232013
Dividend yield28.57%7.42%
Asset classalternativeequity
Regionnorth americaemerging markets
Strategyoption incomeindex tracking
CAGR 1Y+1.4%-15.2%
CAGR 3Y+10.6%+4.3%
CAGR 5YN/A-14.4%
Sharpe 3Y0.460.19
Volatility 1Y15.47%26.84%
Max drawdown-18.61%-80.92%

Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.

Similar to KLIP and KWEB