XPP vs. ISVBF
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while ISVBF is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XPP returned -23.89%/yr vs -6.63%/yr for ISVBF. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ISVBF.
Performance
XPP vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -34.24% return, which is significantly lower than ISVBF's -14.80% return.
XPP
- 1D
- -4.68%
- 1M
- -21.13%
- YTD
- -34.24%
- 6M
- -35.23%
- 1Y
- -31.54%
- 3Y*
- 0.47%
- 5Y*
- -23.89%
- 10Y*
- -6.70%
ISVBF
- 1D
- -0.85%
- 1M
- -9.22%
- YTD
- -14.80%
- 6M
- -14.96%
- 1Y
- -6.39%
- 3Y*
- 7.90%
- 5Y*
- -6.63%
- 10Y*
- —
XPP vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -34.24% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -36.85% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -14.80% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and ISVBF is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.67 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.34 |
Over the past year, XPP and ISVBF have become more correlated (0.67) than their long-term average of 0.34, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
ISVBF
XPP vs. ISVBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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 | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.97 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.88 | 0.99 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.71 | -0.28 | -0.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.73 | -0.68 | -1.05 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than ISVBF's maximum drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and ISVBF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -53.78% | -36.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.65% | -22.63% | -22.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -52.95% | -23.77% | -29.18% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -85.24% | -52.51% | -32.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -82.59% | -30.95% | -51.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -47.92% | -32.68% | -15.24% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.20% | 9.39% | +8.81% |
Volatility
XPP vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 13.07% compared to iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) at 7.55%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISVBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.07% | 7.55% | +5.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.87% | 26.94% | +2.93% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.37% | 30.86% | +8.51% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.86% | 30.32% | +32.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.80% | 30.14% | +24.66% |
XPP vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison
XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
XPP vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.18%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS 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 | 3.18% | 2.32% | 2.96% | 2.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.81% | 1.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XPP and ISVBF have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (13.07%) compared to ISVBF (7.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs ISVBF's -53.78%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -6.63% vs -23.89% for XPP. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISVBF has been the lower-risk option at 7.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a -6.63% return vs -23.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 3.18%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
XPP is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ISVBF is China Equities. XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.40% for ISVBF.
ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.21 vs -0.80), 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 ISVBF
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