ROM vs. XPP
ROM (ProShares Ultra Technology) and XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) are both exchange-traded funds - ROM is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P Technology Select Sector 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, ROM returned 41.38%/yr vs -7.80%/yr for XPP. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
ROM vs. XPP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ROM achieves a 56.35% return, which is significantly higher than XPP's -33.90% return. Over the past 10 years, ROM has outperformed XPP with an annualized return of 41.38%, while XPP has yielded a comparatively lower -7.80% annualized return.
ROM
- 1D
- 5.31%
- 1M
- -7.27%
- YTD
- 56.35%
- 6M
- 51.88%
- 1Y
- 97.81%
- 3Y*
- 48.77%
- 5Y*
- 25.22%
- 10Y*
- 41.38%
XPP
- 1D
- 0.62%
- 1M
- -17.76%
- YTD
- -33.90%
- 6M
- -34.31%
- 1Y
- -30.38%
- 3Y*
- 0.24%
- 5Y*
- -23.34%
- 10Y*
- -7.80%
ROM vs. XPP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology | 56.35% | 35.63% | 31.65% | 130.70% | -63.86% | 77.75% | 80.42% | 102.10% | -9.89% | 81.11% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -33.90% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 80.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between ROM and XPP is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009 | 0.52 |
The correlation between ROM and XPP shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (3 years) to 0.52 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
ROM vs. XPP - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
ROM
XPP
Technology
-
Financial Services
Energy
-
Industrials
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Technology
ROM
XPP
-
Financial Services
ROM
XPP
Energy
ROM
XPP
-
Industrials
ROM
XPP
-
Basic Materials
ROM
-
XPP
-
Communication Services
ROM
-
XPP
-
Consumer Cyclical
ROM
-
XPP
-
Consumer Defensive
ROM
-
XPP
-
Healthcare
ROM
-
XPP
-
Real Estate
ROM
-
XPP
-
Utilities
ROM
-
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
ROM vs. XPP — Risk / Return Rank
ROM
XPP
ROM vs. XPP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) 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.
| ROM | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.85 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.32 | 0.89 | +0.44 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.04 | -0.68 | +3.72 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.77 | -1.63 | +10.41 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ROM vs. XPP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ROM drawdown since its inception was -83.36%, smaller than the maximum XPP drawdown of -89.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROM and XPP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ROM | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -83.36% | -89.90% | +6.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.33% | -44.71% | +12.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -48.10% | -52.95% | +4.85% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -67.55% | -84.55% | +17.00% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -67.55% | -89.90% | +22.35% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.79% | -82.51% | +68.72% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.85% | -47.94% | +27.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.19% | 18.62% | -7.43% |
Volatility
ROM vs. XPP - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) has a higher volatility of 25.58% compared to ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) at 13.13%. This indicates that ROM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XPP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ROM | XPP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 25.58% | 13.13% | +12.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 40.00% | 29.88% | +10.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 47.53% | 39.42% | +8.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 52.61% | 62.86% | -10.25% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 50.22% | 54.78% | -4.56% |
ROM vs. XPP - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both ROM and XPP have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
ROM vs. XPP - Dividend Comparison
ROM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than XPP's 3.17% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology | 0.06% | 0.24% | 0.21% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.05% | 0.16% | 0.30% | 0.08% | 0.20% | 0.12% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 3.17% | 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
ROM and XPP have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ROM has higher volatility (25.58%) compared to XPP (13.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ROM dropped -83.36% vs XPP's -89.90%.
On 10-year performance, ROM leads with 41.38% vs -7.80% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, XPP has been the lower-risk option at 13.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ROM has performed better with a 41.38% return vs -7.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ROM and XPP have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 0.06% for ROM.
ROM is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while XPP is China Equities. ROM tracks S&P Technology Select Sector Index (200%), while XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%).
ROM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs -0.77), 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 ROM 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