XPP vs. NOBL
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and NOBL (ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while NOBL is a Dividend fund tracking the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -6.09%/yr vs 9.97%/yr for NOBL. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XPP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for NOBL.
Performance
XPP vs. NOBL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -28.87% return, which is significantly lower than NOBL's 6.48% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed NOBL with an annualized return of -6.09%, while NOBL has yielded a comparatively higher 9.97% annualized return.
XPP
- 1D
- -3.49%
- 1M
- -13.68%
- YTD
- -28.87%
- 6M
- -29.70%
- 1Y
- -21.92%
- 3Y*
- 3.54%
- 5Y*
- -22.11%
- 10Y*
- -6.09%
NOBL
- 1D
- 0.68%
- 1M
- 2.27%
- YTD
- 6.48%
- 6M
- 5.98%
- 1Y
- 12.52%
- 3Y*
- 8.50%
- 5Y*
- 6.18%
- 10Y*
- 9.97%
XPP vs. NOBL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -28.87% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 80.21% |
NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | 6.48% | 6.84% | 6.72% | 8.09% | -6.52% | 25.46% | 8.35% | 27.39% | -3.26% | 21.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and NOBL is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 10, 2013 | 0.42 |
Over the past year, the correlation between XPP and NOBL has dropped to 0.19 - well below their long-term average of 0.42, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
XPP vs. NOBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XPP
NOBL
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
XPP
NOBL
Basic Materials
XPP
-
NOBL
Communication Services
XPP
-
NOBL
-
Consumer Cyclical
XPP
-
NOBL
Consumer Defensive
XPP
-
NOBL
Energy
XPP
-
NOBL
Healthcare
XPP
-
NOBL
Industrials
XPP
-
NOBL
Real Estate
XPP
-
NOBL
Technology
XPP
-
NOBL
Utilities
XPP
-
NOBL
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. NOBL — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
NOBL
XPP vs. NOBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). 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 | NOBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.66 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 1.19 | -0.26 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.55 | 1.38 | -1.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.23 | 3.50 | -4.74 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. NOBL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than NOBL's maximum drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and NOBL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | NOBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -35.43% | -54.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -40.13% | -9.11% | -31.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -52.95% | -15.36% | -37.59% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -85.24% | -17.92% | -67.32% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | -35.43% | -54.47% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -81.17% | -3.29% | -77.88% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -47.90% | -3.48% | -44.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 17.79% | 3.58% | +14.21% |
Volatility
XPP vs. NOBL - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 12.54% compared to ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) at 3.31%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NOBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | NOBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.54% | 3.31% | +9.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.54% | 8.22% | +21.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.48% | 11.52% | +27.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.84% | 14.38% | +48.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.79% | 16.60% | +38.19% |
XPP vs. NOBL - Expense Ratio Comparison
XPP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than NOBL's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
XPP vs. NOBL - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.05%, more than NOBL's 2.06% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | 2.06% | 2.14% | 2.05% | 2.09% | 1.94% | 1.89% | 2.14% | 1.89% | 2.37% | 1.74% | 2.13% | 2.02% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 3.05% | 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 NOBL have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XPP has higher volatility (12.54%) compared to NOBL (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs NOBL's -35.43%.
On 10-year performance, NOBL leads with 9.97% vs -6.09% for XPP. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, NOBL has been the lower-risk option at 3.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, NOBL has performed better with a 9.97% return vs -6.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NOBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XPP.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 2.06% for NOBL.
XPP is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while NOBL is Dividend. XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while NOBL tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XPP and 0.35% for NOBL.
NOBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.10 vs -0.56), 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 NOBL
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