XPP vs. BIL
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -6.09%/yr vs 2.20%/yr for BIL. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.
Performance
XPP vs. BIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -28.87% return, which is significantly lower than BIL's 1.67% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed BIL with an annualized return of -6.09%, while BIL has yielded a comparatively higher 2.20% annualized return.
XPP
- 1D
- -3.49%
- 1M
- -13.68%
- YTD
- -28.87%
- 6M
- -29.70%
- 1Y
- -21.92%
- 3Y*
- 3.54%
- 5Y*
- -22.11%
- 10Y*
- -6.09%
BIL
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 1.67%
- 6M
- 1.76%
- 1Y
- 3.84%
- 3Y*
- 4.60%
- 5Y*
- 3.45%
- 10Y*
- 2.20%
XPP vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -28.87% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 80.21% |
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 1.67% | 4.15% | 5.19% | 4.94% | 1.40% | -0.10% | 0.40% | 2.03% | 1.74% | 0.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and BIL is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.06 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.01 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.00 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009 | -0.01 |
The correlation between XPP and BIL shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.01 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. BIL — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
BIL
XPP vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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 | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -19.88 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -173.27 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 87.16 | -86.23 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.55 | 352.24 | -352.79 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.23 | 2,793.11 | -2,794.34 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and BIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -0.78% | -89.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -40.13% | -0.01% | -40.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -52.95% | -0.01% | -52.94% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -85.24% | -0.09% | -85.15% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | -0.21% | -89.69% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -81.17% | 0.00% | -81.17% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -47.90% | -0.26% | -47.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 17.79% | 0.00% | +17.79% |
Volatility
XPP vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 12.54% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.07%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.54% | 0.07% | +12.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.54% | 0.14% | +29.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.48% | 0.20% | +39.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.84% | 0.26% | +62.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.79% | 0.26% | +54.53% |
XPP vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.
Dividends
XPP vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%, less than BIL's 3.85% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 3.85% | 4.13% | 5.03% | 4.92% | 1.35% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 2.05% | 1.66% | 0.68% | 0.07% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 3.05% | 2.32% | 2.96% | 2.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.47% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XPP and BIL have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (12.54%) compared to BIL (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs BIL's -0.78%.
On 10-year performance, BIL leads with 2.20% vs -6.09% for XPP. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, BIL has performed better with a 2.20% return vs -6.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.85%, compared with 3.05% for XPP.
XPP is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BIL is Government Bonds. XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while BIL tracks Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.14% for BIL.
BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.32 vs -0.56), 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 BIL
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