XPP vs. MCHS

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. XPP is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, XPP returned -21.29% vs 57.44% for MCHS. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

XPP vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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 MCHS's 38.84% 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%

MCHS

• 1D: -4.85%
• 1M: 1.25%
• 6M: 30.55%
• YTD: 38.84%
• 1Y: 57.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XPP vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50	-26.96%	45.84%	58.20%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	38.84%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between XPP and MCHS is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between XPP and MCHS has dropped to 0.42 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XPP vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XPP	MCHS
Financial Services	50.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	8.1%
Communication Services	-	1.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.8%
Energy	-	6.3%
Healthcare	-	2.1%
Industrials	-	27.8%
Real Estate	-	1.6%
Technology	-	49.7%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

XPP vs. MCHS — 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

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 81
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 79
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.54	2.06	-2.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.56	2.60	-3.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.37	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.48	4.03	-4.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.06	12.66	-13.72

XPP vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XPP Sharpe Ratio is -0.54, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XPP and MCHS, 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. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	XPP	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.90%	-23.75%	-66.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.78%	-14.32%	-30.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-52.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-83.51%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-80.67%	-14.32%	-66.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-48.01%	-7.51%	-40.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.17%	4.55%	+15.62%

Volatility

XPP vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) is 12.70%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 16.37%. This indicates that XPP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XPP	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.70%	16.37%	-3.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.45%	24.99%	+4.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.94%	28.02%	+11.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	62.76%	29.75%	+33.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	54.77%	29.75%	+25.02%

XPP vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

XPP vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, more than MCHS's 2.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.57%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50	2.86%	2.32%	2.96%	2.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.81%	1.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XPP and MCHS in my portfolio?

XPP and MCHS have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XPP or MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (16.37%) compared to XPP (12.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, XPP or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 57.44% vs -21.29% for XPP. On fees, MCHS is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, XPP has been the lower-risk option at 12.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XPP or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 57.44% return vs -21.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XPP or MCHS?

MCHS is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.

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

XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 2.57% for MCHS.

What is the main difference between XPP and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 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.