MVV vs. XPP
MVV (ProShares Ultra Midcap 400) and XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) are both exchange-traded funds - MVV is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Index (200%), while XPP is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MVV returned 12.80%/yr vs -6.62%/yr for XPP. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
MVV vs. XPP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MVV achieves a 24.61% return, which is significantly higher than XPP's -19.65% return. Over the past 10 years, MVV has outperformed XPP with an annualized return of 12.80%, while XPP has yielded a comparatively lower -6.62% annualized return.
MVV
- 1D
- -1.62%
- 1M
- -2.79%
- 6M
- 10.99%
- YTD
- 24.61%
- 1Y
- 32.09%
- 3Y*
- 15.91%
- 5Y*
- 7.24%
- 10Y*
- 12.80%
- ALL TIME*
- 11.53%
XPP
- 1D
- 5.58%
- 1M
- 10.65%
- 6M
- -23.23%
- YTD
- -19.65%
- 1Y
- -20.13%
- 3Y*
- 6.19%
- 5Y*
- -18.36%
- 10Y*
- -6.62%
- ALL TIME*
- -5.11%
MVV vs. XPP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MVV ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 | 24.61% | 3.48% | 17.75% | 22.51% | -31.96% | 48.57% | 6.20% | 49.50% | -25.44% | 30.81% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -19.65% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 80.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between MVV and XPP is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009 | 0.53 |
The correlation between MVV and XPP shifts across timeframes, from 0.35 (3 years) to 0.53 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
MVV vs. XPP - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
MVV
XPP
Industrials
-
Technology
-
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Utilities
-
Communication Services
-
Industrials
MVV
XPP
-
Technology
MVV
XPP
-
Financial Services
MVV
XPP
Consumer Cyclical
MVV
XPP
-
Healthcare
MVV
XPP
-
Real Estate
MVV
XPP
-
Basic Materials
MVV
XPP
-
Energy
MVV
XPP
-
Consumer Defensive
MVV
XPP
-
Utilities
MVV
XPP
-
Communication Services
MVV
XPP
-
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
MVV vs. XPP — Risk / Return Rank
MVV
XPP
MVV vs. XPP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 (MVV) 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.
| MVV | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.52 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.10 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 0.94 | +0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.82 | -0.45 | +2.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.17 | -0.97 | +7.14 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MVV vs. XPP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MVV drawdown since its inception was -85.54%, roughly equal to the maximum XPP drawdown of -89.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MVV and XPP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MVV | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -85.54% | -89.90% | +4.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.68% | -44.78% | +27.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -44.80% | -52.95% | +8.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.53% | -82.87% | +37.34% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -69.19% | -89.90% | +20.71% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.92% | -78.74% | +72.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.43% | -48.04% | +27.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.22% | 20.77% | -15.55% |
Volatility
MVV vs. XPP - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 (MVV) is 6.95%, while ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a volatility of 12.90%. This indicates that MVV 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
| MVV | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.95% | 12.90% | -5.95% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.42% | 29.55% | -6.13% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.70% | 40.24% | -8.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.50% | 62.82% | -23.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 42.26% | 54.80% | -12.54% |
MVV vs. XPP - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both MVV and XPP have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
MVV vs. XPP - Dividend Comparison
MVV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.69%, less than XPP's 2.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MVV ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 | 0.69% | 0.77% | 0.39% | 0.77% | 0.93% | 0.16% | 0.29% | 0.62% | 0.62% | 0.21% | 0.43% | 0.17% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 2.60% | 2.32% | 2.96% | 2.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.47% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MVV and XPP have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (12.90%) compared to MVV (6.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MVV dropped -85.54% vs XPP's -89.90%.
On 10-year performance, MVV leads with 12.80% vs -6.62% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, MVV has been the lower-risk option at 6.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, MVV has performed better with a 12.80% return vs -6.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MVV and XPP have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 0.69% for MVV.
MVV is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while XPP is China Equities. MVV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (200%), while XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%).
MVV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.02 vs -0.50), 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 MVV 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