PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XPP vs. ASHR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XPP vs. ASHR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -26.96% return, which is significantly lower than ASHR's 5.02% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed ASHR with an annualized return of -7.40%, while ASHR has yielded a comparatively higher 4.74% annualized return.


XPP

1D
-0.25%
1M
-9.77%
6M
-34.75%
YTD
-26.96%
1Y
-21.29%
3Y*
1.14%
5Y*
-20.34%
10Y*
-7.40%

ASHR

1D
-2.49%
1M
-2.29%
6M
0.47%
YTD
5.02%
1Y
25.58%
3Y*
10.02%
5Y*
-1.22%
10Y*
4.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XPP vs. ASHR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XPP
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50
-26.96%45.84%38.18%-34.77%-50.06%-40.45%7.07%24.88%-31.36%80.21%
ASHR
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF
5.02%27.02%11.95%-12.52%-27.52%-1.57%36.29%36.50%-28.45%33.47%

Correlation

The correlation between XPP and ASHR is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.62

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.68

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2013

0.72

The correlation between XPP and ASHR shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (1 year) to 0.74 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XPP vs. ASHR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XPP
ASHR

Financial Services

50.6%
19.1%

Basic Materials

-

9.4%

Communication Services

-

0.8%

Consumer Cyclical

-

6.4%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.7%

Energy

-

2.5%

Healthcare

-

4.4%

Industrials

-

16.1%

Real Estate

-

0.4%

Technology

-

31.1%

Utilities

-

3.1%

Financial Services

XPP
50.6%
ASHR
19.1%

Basic Materials

XPP

-

ASHR
9.4%

Communication Services

XPP

-

ASHR
0.8%

Consumer Cyclical

XPP

-

ASHR
6.4%

Consumer Defensive

XPP

-

ASHR
6.7%

Energy

XPP

-

ASHR
2.5%

Healthcare

XPP

-

ASHR
4.4%

Industrials

XPP

-

ASHR
16.1%

Real Estate

XPP

-

ASHR
0.4%

Technology

XPP

-

ASHR
31.1%

Utilities

XPP

-

ASHR
3.1%

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

XPP vs. ASHR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

XPP
XPP Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
XPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
XPP Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
XPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
Calmar Ratio Rank
XPP Martin Ratio Rank: 44
Martin Ratio Rank

ASHR
ASHR Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
ASHR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASHR Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASHR Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
ASHR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASHR Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

XPP vs. ASHR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR). 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.


XPPASHRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.89

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.51

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.94

1.24

-0.31

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.48

3.34

-3.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.06

9.00

-10.06

XPP vs. ASHR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XPP Sharpe Ratio is -0.54, which is lower than the ASHR Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XPP and ASHR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

XPP vs. ASHR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than ASHR's maximum drawdown of -51.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and ASHR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XPPASHRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.90%

-51.30%

-38.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-44.78%

-7.69%

-37.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-52.95%

-33.12%

-19.83%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-83.51%

-44.10%

-39.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-89.90%

-51.30%

-38.60%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-80.67%

-19.53%

-61.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-48.01%

-29.07%

-18.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

20.17%

2.85%

+17.32%

Volatility

XPP vs. ASHR - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 12.70% compared to Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR) at 8.70%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ASHR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XPPASHRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.70%

8.70%

+4.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

29.45%

14.34%

+15.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

39.94%

18.94%

+21.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

62.76%

24.11%

+38.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

54.77%

24.15%

+30.62%

XPP vs. ASHR - Expense Ratio Comparison

XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than ASHR's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

XPP vs. ASHR - Dividend Comparison

XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, more than ASHR's 2.20% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ASHR
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF
2.20%2.31%1.13%2.48%1.13%0.88%0.81%0.98%1.32%0.84%0.73%30.13%
XPP
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50
2.86%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


XPP and ASHR have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XPP has higher volatility (12.70%) compared to ASHR (8.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs ASHR's -51.30%.

On 10-year performance, ASHR leads with 4.74% vs -7.40% for XPP. On fees, ASHR is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASHR has been the lower-risk option at 8.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ASHR has performed better with a 4.74% return vs -7.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ASHR is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.

XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 2.20% for ASHR.

XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while ASHR tracks CSI 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and DWS. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.65% for ASHR.

ASHR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs -0.54), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XPP and ASHR

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