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 -5.62%/yr vs 4.69%/yr for GXC. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. 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 -13.25% return, which is significantly lower than GXC's -4.85% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed GXC with an annualized return of -5.62%, while GXC has yielded a comparatively higher 4.69% annualized 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%
GXC
- 1D
- 0.38%
- 1M
- 6.09%
- 6M
- -9.74%
- YTD
- -4.85%
- 1Y
- 3.49%
- 3Y*
- 7.77%
- 5Y*
- -2.07%
- 10Y*
- 4.69%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.93%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $4.07M | $2.78M | $2.53M | |
| $97.64K | $74.04K | $132.37K |
XPP vs. GXC - 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% | 80.21% |
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | -4.85% | 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 0.91, 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. | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 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 0.91 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 | -0.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.03 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.24 | 0.11 | -0.36 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.50 | 0.24 | -0.74 |
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 | -48.56% | -25.54% | -23.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -81.38% | -48.78% | -32.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | -60.23% | -29.67% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -77.04% | -32.76% | -44.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -48.11% | -28.86% | -19.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 21.55% | 8.51% | +13.04% |
Volatility
XPP vs. GXC - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 10.66% compared to SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) at 5.39%. 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 | 10.66% | 5.39% | +5.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.57% | 13.92% | +15.65% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.39% | 19.44% | +20.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.33% | 28.70% | +33.63% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.80% | 26.05% | +28.75% |
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 2.41%, more than GXC's 2.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | 2.18% | 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 | 2.41% | 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 0.91, 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 (10.66%) compared to GXC (5.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs GXC's -71.96%.
On 10-year performance, GXC leads with 4.69% vs -5.62% for XPP. On fees, GXC is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, GXC has been the lower-risk option at 5.39%. 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 4.69% return vs -5.62%. 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 2.41%, compared with 2.18% 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 (0.10 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 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