XPP vs. CAOS
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. XPP is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XPP returned 4.02%/yr vs 3.48%/yr for CAOS. Their 0.00 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.
Performance
XPP vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -13.25% return, which is significantly lower than CAOS's 0.76% return.
XPP
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 29.99%
- 6M
- -18.24%
- YTD
- -13.25%
- 1Y
- -7.90%
- 3Y*
- 4.02%
- 5Y*
- -14.42%
- 10Y*
- -5.62%
- ALL TIME*
- -4.67%
CAOS
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- -0.01%
- 6M
- 0.16%
- YTD
- 0.76%
- 1Y
- 1.73%
- 3Y*
- 3.48%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 4.70%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.81M | $5.39M | $5.09M | |
| $97.64K | $74.04K | $132.37K |
XPP vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -13.25% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -38.48% |
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF | 0.76% | 2.55% | 5.33% | 7.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and CAOS is -0.24, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.24 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023 | 0.00 |
The correlation between XPP and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.24 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), 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. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
CAOS
XPP vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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 | CAOS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.24 | -0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.24 | 2.47 | -2.71 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.50 | 5.45 | -5.95 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and CAOS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | CAOS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -3.89% | -86.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.78% | -0.76% | -44.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -48.56% | -3.60% | -44.96% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -81.38% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -77.04% | -1.13% | -75.91% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -48.11% | -0.92% | -47.19% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 21.55% | 0.34% | +21.21% |
Volatility
XPP vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 10.66% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.51%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | CAOS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.66% | 0.51% | +10.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.57% | 1.07% | +28.50% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.39% | 1.57% | +38.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.33% | 4.18% | +58.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.80% | 4.18% | +50.62% |
XPP vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison
XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.
Dividends
XPP vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 2.41% | 2.32% | 2.96% | 2.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XPP and CAOS have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (10.66%) compared to CAOS (0.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs CAOS's -3.89%.
On 3-year performance, XPP leads with 4.02% vs 3.48% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, XPP has performed better with a 4.02% return vs 3.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.41%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.
XPP is categorized as China Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.63% for CAOS.
CAOS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs -0.27), 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 CAOS
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