XPP vs. ROM
XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and ROM (ProShares Ultra Technology) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while ROM is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P Technology Select Sector Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -6.62%/yr vs 38.10%/yr for ROM. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
XPP vs. ROM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -19.65% return, which is significantly lower than ROM's 38.89% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed ROM with an annualized return of -6.62%, while ROM has yielded a comparatively higher 38.10% annualized return.
XPP
- 1D
- 5.58%
- 1M
- 10.65%
- 6M
- -23.23%
- YTD
- -19.65%
- 1Y
- -20.13%
- 3Y*
- 6.19%
- 5Y*
- -18.36%
- 10Y*
- -6.62%
- ALL TIME*
- -5.11%
ROM
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- -16.60%
- 6M
- 36.16%
- YTD
- 38.89%
- 1Y
- 62.90%
- 3Y*
- 42.01%
- 5Y*
- 21.27%
- 10Y*
- 38.10%
- ALL TIME*
- 23.75%
XPP vs. ROM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | -19.65% | 45.84% | 38.18% | -34.77% | -50.06% | -40.45% | 7.07% | 24.88% | -31.36% | 80.21% |
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology | 38.89% | 35.63% | 31.65% | 130.70% | -63.86% | 77.75% | 80.42% | 102.10% | -9.89% | 81.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between XPP and ROM is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009 | 0.52 |
The correlation between XPP and ROM shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (3 years) to 0.52 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XPP vs. ROM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XPP
ROM
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
-
Financial Services
XPP
ROM
Basic Materials
XPP
-
ROM
-
Communication Services
XPP
-
ROM
Consumer Cyclical
XPP
-
ROM
-
Consumer Defensive
XPP
-
ROM
-
Energy
XPP
-
ROM
Healthcare
XPP
-
ROM
-
Industrials
XPP
-
ROM
Real Estate
XPP
-
ROM
-
Technology
XPP
-
ROM
Utilities
XPP
-
ROM
-
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. ROM — Risk / Return Rank
XPP
ROM
XPP vs. ROM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM). 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 | ROM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.94 | 1.23 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.45 | 1.96 | -2.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.97 | 5.28 | -6.25 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XPP vs. ROM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, which is greater than ROM's maximum drawdown of -83.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and ROM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XPP | ROM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.90% | -83.36% | -6.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.78% | -32.33% | -12.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -52.95% | -48.10% | -4.85% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -82.87% | -67.55% | -15.32% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.90% | -67.55% | -22.35% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -78.74% | -23.42% | -55.32% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -48.04% | -20.84% | -27.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.77% | 11.96% | +8.81% |
Volatility
XPP vs. ROM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) is 12.90%, while ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) has a volatility of 19.27%. This indicates that XPP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ROM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XPP | ROM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.90% | 19.27% | -6.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.55% | 42.12% | -12.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.24% | 49.40% | -9.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.82% | 52.92% | +9.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.80% | 50.39% | +4.41% |
XPP vs. ROM - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both XPP and ROM have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
XPP vs. ROM - Dividend Comparison
XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.60%, more than ROM's 0.07% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology | 0.07% | 0.24% | 0.21% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.05% | 0.16% | 0.30% | 0.08% | 0.20% | 0.12% |
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 | 2.60% | 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 ROM have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ROM has higher volatility (19.27%) compared to XPP (12.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs ROM's -83.36%.
On 10-year performance, ROM leads with 38.10% vs -6.62% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, XPP has been the lower-risk option at 12.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ROM has performed better with a 38.10% return vs -6.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XPP and ROM have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 0.07% for ROM.
XPP is categorized as China Equities, while ROM is Leveraged Equities. XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while ROM tracks S&P Technology Select Sector Index (200%).
ROM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs -0.50), 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 ROM
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