FXP vs. EEMA
FXP (ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FXP is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the FTSE China 50 Net Tax USD (TR) (-200%), while EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FXP returned -22.28%/yr vs 10.73%/yr for EEMA. At a correlation of -0.83, they often move in opposite directions. FXP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.
Performance
FXP vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FXP achieves a 30.56% return, which is significantly higher than EEMA's 23.06% return. Over the past 10 years, FXP has underperformed EEMA with an annualized return of -22.28%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively higher 10.73% annualized return.
FXP
- 1D
- 4.04%
- 1M
- 14.69%
- YTD
- 30.56%
- 6M
- 32.48%
- 1Y
- 12.48%
- 3Y*
- -27.51%
- 5Y*
- -14.41%
- 10Y*
- -22.28%
EEMA
- 1D
- -5.06%
- 1M
- 2.38%
- YTD
- 23.06%
- 6M
- 24.51%
- 1Y
- 46.13%
- 3Y*
- 23.23%
- 5Y*
- 6.59%
- 10Y*
- 10.73%
FXP vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FXP ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 | 30.56% | -45.32% | -52.46% | 12.74% | -11.73% | 23.56% | -39.47% | -29.01% | 12.45% | -49.76% |
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF | 23.06% | 33.27% | 10.23% | 6.57% | -21.49% | -4.22% | 25.17% | 18.60% | -15.76% | 43.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between FXP and EEMA is -0.69, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.69 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.77 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.83 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.85 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012 | -0.83 |
The correlation between FXP and EEMA shifts across timeframes, from -0.85 (10 years) to -0.69 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FXP vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank
FXP
EEMA
FXP vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 (FXP) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.
| FXP | EEMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.73 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.94 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.38 | -0.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.51 | 3.24 | -2.73 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.89 | 11.74 | -10.85 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FXP vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FXP drawdown since its inception was -99.94%, which is greater than EEMA's maximum drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXP and EEMA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FXP | EEMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.94% | -44.18% | -55.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.73% | -14.30% | -10.43% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -82.34% | -20.23% | -62.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -87.85% | -40.46% | -47.39% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -94.71% | -44.18% | -50.53% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.91% | -5.06% | -94.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -94.15% | -13.93% | -80.22% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.56% | 3.94% | +10.62% |
Volatility
FXP vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison
ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 (FXP) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) have volatilities of 12.22% and 11.69%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FXP | EEMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.22% | 11.69% | +0.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.48% | 20.09% | +9.39% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.65% | 22.62% | +17.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 63.21% | 20.88% | +42.33% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.78% | 21.04% | +33.74% |
FXP vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison
FXP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
FXP vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison
FXP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.58%, more than EEMA's 1.34% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF | 1.34% | 1.48% | 1.74% | 2.02% | 1.78% | 2.19% | 1.15% | 1.86% | 2.17% | 1.74% | 1.74% | 2.44% |
FXP ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 | 3.58% | 9.57% | 3.55% | 2.20% | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 1.20% | 0.16% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FXP and EEMA have a correlation of -0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FXP has higher volatility (12.22%) compared to EEMA (11.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FXP dropped -99.94% vs EEMA's -44.18%.
On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 10.73% vs -22.28% for FXP. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 11.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 10.73% return vs -22.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FXP.
FXP has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 1.34% for EEMA.
FXP is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while EEMA is Asia Pacific Equities. FXP tracks FTSE China 50 Net Tax USD (TR) (-200%), while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for FXP and 0.50% for EEMA.
EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.32), 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.
Find the right allocation for FXP and EEMA
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer