XPP vs. FLCH

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both China Equities funds - XPP tracks the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%) while FLCH tracks the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XPP returned -20.34%/yr vs -4.99%/yr for FLCH. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

XPP vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -26.96% return, which is significantly lower than FLCH's -11.65% 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%

FLCH

• 1D: -1.36%
• 1M: -3.67%
• 6M: -17.28%
• YTD: -11.65%
• 1Y: -1.70%
• 3Y*: 7.36%
• 5Y*: -4.99%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XPP vs. FLCH - 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%	2.74%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-11.65%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.87%	30.09%	24.32%	-19.52%	1.51%

Correlation

The correlation between XPP and FLCH is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.96

The correlation between XPP and FLCH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

XPP vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XPP	FLCH
Financial Services	50.6%	18.3%
Basic Materials	-	5.2%
Communication Services	-	14.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	20.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.2%
Energy	-	3.3%
Healthcare	-	5.7%
Industrials	-	11.1%
Real Estate	-	1.6%
Technology	-	13.9%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

XPP vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

XPP

XPP Risk / Return Rank: 5
XPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
XPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
XPP Omega Ratio Rank: 5
XPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
XPP Martin Ratio Rank: 4

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 8
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH). 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	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.54	-0.09	-0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.56	0.01	-0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.00	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.48	-0.08	-0.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.06	-0.18	-0.88

XPP vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XPP Sharpe Ratio is -0.54, which is lower than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of -0.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XPP and FLCH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

XPP vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than FLCH's maximum drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	XPP	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.90%	-62.09%	-27.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.78%	-21.48%	-23.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-52.95%	-25.43%	-27.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-83.51%	-53.29%	-30.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-80.67%	-37.72%	-42.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-48.01%	-30.60%	-17.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.17%	9.46%	+10.71%

Volatility

XPP vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 12.70% compared to Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) at 5.45%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLCH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XPP	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.70%	5.45%	+7.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.45%	13.87%	+15.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.94%	19.59%	+20.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	62.76%	29.57%	+33.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	54.77%	27.81%	+26.96%

XPP vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

XPP vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, more than FLCH's 2.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.45%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XPP and FLCH in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, XPP and FLCH move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, XPP or FLCH?

XPP has higher volatility (12.70%) compared to FLCH (5.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, XPP or FLCH?

On 5-year performance, FLCH leads with -4.99% vs -20.34% for XPP. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 5.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XPP or FLCH?

Over the 5-year period, FLCH has performed better with a -4.99% return vs -20.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XPP or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XPP or FLCH?

XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 2.45% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between XPP and FLCH?

XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.09 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.