XPP vs. GXC
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and GXC (SPDR S&P China ETF) are both China Equities funds - XPP tracks the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%) while GXC tracks the S&P China BMI Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -7.40%/yr vs 4.21%/yr for GXC. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for GXC.
Performance
XPP vs. GXC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -26.96% return, which is significantly lower than GXC's -8.88% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed GXC with an annualized return of -7.40%, while GXC has yielded a comparatively higher 4.21% 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%
GXC
- 1D
- -1.39%
- 1M
- -3.83%
- 6M
- -15.24%
- YTD
- -8.88%
- 1Y
- 1.78%
- 3Y*
- 7.68%
- 5Y*
- -4.64%
- 10Y*
- 4.21%
XPP vs. GXC - 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% |
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | -8.88% | 30.84% | 14.60% | -9.93% | -22.12% | -19.70% | 28.31% | 23.07% | -19.39% | 51.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and GXC is 0.92, 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 | 0.92 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009 | 0.96 |
The correlation between XPP and GXC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
XPP vs. GXC - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XPP
GXC
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
XPP
GXC
Basic Materials
XPP
-
GXC
Communication Services
XPP
-
GXC
Consumer Cyclical
XPP
-
GXC
Consumer Defensive
XPP
-
GXC
Energy
XPP
-
GXC
Healthcare
XPP
-
GXC
Industrials
XPP
-
GXC
Real Estate
XPP
-
GXC
Technology
XPP
-
GXC
Utilities
XPP
-
GXC
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. GXC — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
GXC
XPP vs. GXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC). 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 | GXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.63 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.83 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.94 | 1.03 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.48 | 0.10 | -0.58 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.06 | 0.23 | -1.29 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. GXC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than GXC's maximum drawdown of -71.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and GXC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | GXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -71.96% | -17.94% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.78% | -17.77% | -27.01% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -52.95% | -25.54% | -27.41% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -83.51% | -51.69% | -31.82% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | -60.23% | -29.67% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -80.67% | -35.60% | -45.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -48.01% | -28.85% | -19.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.17% | 7.80% | +12.37% |
Volatility
XPP vs. GXC - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 12.70% compared to SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) at 5.22%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GXC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | GXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.70% | 5.22% | +7.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.45% | 13.89% | +15.56% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.94% | 19.24% | +20.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.76% | 28.97% | +33.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.77% | 26.04% | +28.73% |
XPP vs. GXC - Expense Ratio Comparison
XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GXC's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
XPP vs. GXC - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, more than GXC's 2.27% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | 2.27% | 2.40% | 2.81% | 3.70% | 2.67% | 1.35% | 1.04% | 1.60% | 2.03% | 1.84% | 2.05% | 2.85% |
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
With a correlation of 0.92, XPP and GXC 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 (12.70%) compared to GXC (5.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs GXC's -71.96%.
On 10-year performance, GXC leads with 4.21% vs -7.40% for XPP. On fees, GXC is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, GXC has been the lower-risk option at 5.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GXC has performed better with a 4.21% return vs -7.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GXC is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 2.27% for GXC.
XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while GXC tracks S&P China BMI Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.59% for GXC.
GXC 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.
Find the right allocation for XPP and GXC
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