ISVBF vs. XPP
ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) are both China Equities funds - ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index while XPP tracks the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ISVBF returned -2.55%/yr vs -14.42%/yr for XPP. Their 0.35 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for XPP.
Performance
ISVBF vs. XPP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -7.08% return, which is significantly higher than XPP's -13.25% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- 0.30%
- 1M
- 8.66%
- 6M
- -11.40%
- YTD
- -7.08%
- 1Y
- 0.32%
- 3Y*
- 7.49%
- 5Y*
- -2.55%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -4.51%
XPP
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 29.99%
- 6M
- -18.24%
- YTD
- -13.25%
- 1Y
- -7.90%
- 3Y*
- 4.02%
- 5Y*
- -14.42%
- 10Y*
- -5.62%
- ALL TIME*
- -4.67%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $155.37K | $259.62K | $313.99K | |
| $97.64K | $74.04K | $132.37K |
ISVBF vs. XPP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -7.08% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -13.25% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -36.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and XPP is 0.68, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.68 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.52 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.36 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.35 |
Over the past year, ISVBF and XPP have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.35, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
ISVBF vs. XPP — Risk / Return Rank
ISVBF
XPP
ISVBF vs. XPP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP). 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.
| ISVBF | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.23 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.02 | 0.99 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.06 | -0.24 | +0.19 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.12 | -0.50 | +0.38 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ISVBF vs. XPP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, smaller than the maximum XPP drawdown of -89.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and XPP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ISVBF | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.78% | -89.90% | +36.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.14% | -44.78% | +20.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.14% | -48.56% | +24.42% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -46.06% | -81.38% | +35.32% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -89.90% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.69% | -77.04% | +52.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.58% | -48.11% | +15.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.15% | 21.55% | -10.40% |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. XPP - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) is 6.84%, while ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a volatility of 10.66%. This indicates that ISVBF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XPP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ISVBF | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.84% | 10.66% | -3.82% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.50% | 29.57% | -3.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.73% | 40.39% | -8.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.06% | 62.33% | -32.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.07% | 54.80% | -24.73% |
ISVBF vs. XPP - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than XPP's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
ISVBF vs. XPP - Dividend Comparison
ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 2.41% | 2.32% | 2.96% | 2.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ISVBF and XPP have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (10.66%) compared to ISVBF (6.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs XPP's -89.90%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -2.55% vs -14.42% for XPP. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISVBF has been the lower-risk option at 6.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a -2.55% return vs -14.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.41%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: iShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.95% for XPP.
ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.04 vs -0.27), 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 ISVBF and XPP
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