XPP vs. FLCH
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 -14.42%/yr vs -2.03%/yr for FLCH. Their 0.95 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.
Performance
XPP vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -13.25% return, which is significantly lower than FLCH's -6.16% 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%
FLCH
- 1D
- 0.50%
- 1M
- 8.66%
- 6M
- -9.56%
- YTD
- -6.16%
- 1Y
- 1.60%
- 3Y*
- 7.92%
- 5Y*
- -2.03%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 0.59%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $3.84M | $4.46M | $3.18M | |
| $97.64K | $74.04K | $132.37K |
XPP vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -13.25% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 2.74% |
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF | -6.16% | 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 0.92, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.92 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.95 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.97 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017 | 0.95 |
The correlation between XPP and FLCH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.
XPP vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XPP
FLCH
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
XPP
FLCH
Basic Materials
XPP
-
FLCH
Communication Services
XPP
-
FLCH
Consumer Cyclical
XPP
-
FLCH
Consumer Defensive
XPP
-
FLCH
Energy
XPP
-
FLCH
Healthcare
XPP
-
FLCH
Industrials
XPP
-
FLCH
Real Estate
XPP
-
FLCH
Technology
XPP
-
FLCH
Utilities
XPP
-
FLCH
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. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
FLCH
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 ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.02 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.24 | -0.00 | -0.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.50 | -0.00 | -0.50 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | FLCH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 | -48.56% | -25.15% | -23.41% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -81.38% | -50.38% | -31.00% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -77.04% | -33.85% | -43.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -48.11% | -30.63% | -17.48% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 21.55% | 10.23% | +11.32% |
Volatility
XPP vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 10.66% compared to Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) at 5.89%. 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | FLCH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.66% | 5.89% | +4.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.57% | 14.07% | +15.50% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.39% | 19.91% | +20.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.33% | 29.34% | +32.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.80% | 27.77% | +27.03% |
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 2.41%, more than FLCH's 2.31% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF | 2.31% | 2.36% | 2.87% | 3.47% | 2.69% | 1.48% | 0.91% | 1.98% | 1.92% | 0.01% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 2.41% | 2.32% | 2.96% | 2.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.47% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.92, 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.
XPP has higher volatility (10.66%) compared to FLCH (5.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs FLCH's -62.09%.
On 5-year performance, FLCH leads with -2.03% vs -14.42% for XPP. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 5.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FLCH has performed better with a -2.03% return vs -14.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.41%, compared with 2.31% for 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.
FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.00 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 FLCH
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