GLWG vs. FXP
GLWG (Leverage Shares 2X Long GLW Daily ETF) and FXP (ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50) are both Leveraged Equities funds - GLWG tracks the Corning Incorporated (GLW) while FXP tracks the FTSE China 50 Net Tax USD (TR) (-200%). Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.42, they often move in opposite directions. GLWG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FXP.
Performance
GLWG vs. FXP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GLWG
- 1D
- 12.39%
- 1M
- 3.72%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FXP
- 1D
- 2.52%
- 1M
- 17.58%
- YTD
- 33.85%
- 6M
- 35.70%
- 1Y
- 21.62%
- 3Y*
- -26.91%
- 5Y*
- -13.32%
- 10Y*
- -22.09%
GLWG vs. FXP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
GLWG Leverage Shares 2X Long GLW Daily ETF | 91.93% |
FXP ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 | 22.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLWG and FXP is -0.42, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 10, 2026 | -0.42 |
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
GLWG vs. FXP — Risk / Return Rank
GLWG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
FXP
GLWG vs. FXP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long GLW Daily ETF (GLWG) and ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 (FXP). 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.
| GLWG | FXP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.12 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.88 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 1.54 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GLWG vs. FXP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLWG drawdown since its inception was -39.12%, smaller than the maximum FXP drawdown of -99.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLWG and FXP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLWG | FXP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.12% | -99.94% | +60.82% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -24.73% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -82.34% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -87.85% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -94.71% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.97% | -99.90% | +87.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.36% | -94.15% | +80.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 14.07% | — |
Volatility
GLWG vs. FXP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLWG | FXP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 12.30% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 29.50% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 160.96% | 39.64% | +121.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 160.96% | 63.21% | +97.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 160.96% | 54.77% | +106.19% |
GLWG vs. FXP - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLWG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than FXP's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
GLWG vs. FXP - Dividend Comparison
GLWG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FXP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.49%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FXP ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 | 3.49% | 9.57% | 3.55% | 2.20% | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 1.20% | 0.16% |
GLWG Leverage Shares 2X Long GLW Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GLWG and FXP have a correlation of -0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GLWG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GLWG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FXP.
FXP has the higher dividend yield at 3.49%, compared with 0.00% for GLWG.
GLWG tracks Corning Incorporated (GLW), while FXP tracks FTSE China 50 Net Tax USD (TR) (-200%). They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GLWG and 0.95% for FXP.
Find the right allocation for GLWG and FXP
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