XPP vs. ASHR
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and ASHR (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF) are both China Equities funds - XPP tracks the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%) while ASHR tracks the CSI 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -7.40%/yr vs 4.74%/yr for ASHR. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASHR.
Performance
XPP vs. ASHR - Performance Comparison
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%
XPP vs. ASHR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
XPP
ASHR
Basic Materials
XPP
-
ASHR
Communication Services
XPP
-
ASHR
Consumer Cyclical
XPP
-
ASHR
Consumer Defensive
XPP
-
ASHR
Energy
XPP
-
ASHR
Healthcare
XPP
-
ASHR
Industrials
XPP
-
ASHR
Real Estate
XPP
-
ASHR
Technology
XPP
-
ASHR
Utilities
XPP
-
ASHR
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
XPP
ASHR
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.
| XPP | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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
| XPP | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -80.67% | -19.53% | -61.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -48.01% | -29.07% | -18.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth 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
| XPP | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
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