XPP vs. MVV
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and MVV (ProShares Ultra Midcap 400) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while MVV is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -7.80%/yr vs 14.06%/yr for MVV. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
XPP vs. MVV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -33.90% return, which is significantly lower than MVV's 30.32% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed MVV with an annualized return of -7.80%, while MVV has yielded a comparatively higher 14.06% annualized return.
XPP
- 1D
- 0.62%
- 1M
- -17.76%
- YTD
- -33.90%
- 6M
- -34.31%
- 1Y
- -30.38%
- 3Y*
- 0.24%
- 5Y*
- -23.34%
- 10Y*
- -7.80%
MVV
- 1D
- 0.85%
- 1M
- 5.00%
- YTD
- 30.32%
- 6M
- 26.56%
- 1Y
- 43.83%
- 3Y*
- 19.98%
- 5Y*
- 7.85%
- 10Y*
- 14.06%
XPP vs. MVV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -33.90% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 80.21% |
MVV ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 | 30.32% | 3.48% | 17.75% | 22.51% | -31.96% | 48.57% | 6.20% | 49.50% | -25.44% | 30.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and MVV is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009 | 0.53 |
The correlation between XPP and MVV shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (3 years) to 0.53 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XPP vs. MVV - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XPP
MVV
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
XPP
MVV
Basic Materials
XPP
-
MVV
Communication Services
XPP
-
MVV
Consumer Cyclical
XPP
-
MVV
Consumer Defensive
XPP
-
MVV
Energy
XPP
-
MVV
Healthcare
XPP
-
MVV
Industrials
XPP
-
MVV
Real Estate
XPP
-
MVV
Technology
XPP
-
MVV
Utilities
XPP
-
MVV
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. MVV — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
MVV
XPP vs. MVV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 (MVV). 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 | MVV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.16 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.89 | 1.24 | -0.36 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.68 | 2.49 | -3.17 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.63 | 8.53 | -10.17 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. MVV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than MVV's maximum drawdown of -85.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and MVV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | MVV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -85.54% | -4.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.71% | -17.68% | -27.03% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -52.95% | -44.80% | -8.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -84.55% | -45.53% | -39.02% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | -69.19% | -20.71% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -82.51% | 0.00% | -82.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -47.94% | -20.48% | -27.46% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.62% | 5.15% | +13.47% |
Volatility
XPP vs. MVV - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 13.13% compared to ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 (MVV) at 9.10%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MVV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | MVV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.13% | 9.10% | +4.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.88% | 23.50% | +6.38% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.42% | 31.76% | +7.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.86% | 39.66% | +23.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.78% | 42.26% | +12.52% |
XPP vs. MVV - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both XPP and MVV have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
XPP vs. MVV - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.17%, more than MVV's 0.66% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MVV ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 | 0.66% | 0.77% | 0.39% | 0.77% | 0.93% | 0.16% | 0.29% | 0.62% | 0.62% | 0.21% | 0.43% | 0.17% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 3.17% | 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
XPP and MVV have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (13.13%) compared to MVV (9.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs MVV's -85.54%.
On 10-year performance, MVV leads with 14.06% vs -7.80% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, MVV has been the lower-risk option at 9.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, MVV has performed better with a 14.06% return vs -7.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XPP and MVV have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 0.66% for MVV.
XPP is categorized as China Equities, while MVV is Leveraged Equities. XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while MVV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (200%).
MVV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs -0.77), 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 MVV
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