PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XPP vs. ROM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XPP vs. ROM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -21.53% return, which is significantly lower than ROM's 55.07% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed ROM with an annualized return of -5.67%, while ROM has yielded a comparatively higher 40.84% annualized return.


XPP

1D
-0.06%
1M
-13.81%
YTD
-21.53%
6M
-24.53%
1Y
-14.32%
3Y*
4.28%
5Y*
-20.38%
10Y*
-5.67%

ROM

1D
4.27%
1M
8.23%
YTD
55.07%
6M
46.89%
1Y
116.54%
3Y*
52.79%
5Y*
27.93%
10Y*
40.84%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XPP vs. ROM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XPP
ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50
-21.53%45.84%38.18%-34.77%-50.06%-40.45%7.07%24.88%-31.36%80.21%
ROM
ProShares Ultra Technology
55.07%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 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.43

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.34

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2009

0.52

The correlation between XPP and ROM shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (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

43.8%
3.0%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

0.1%

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

0.0%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

55.2%

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

XPP
43.8%
ROM
3.0%

Basic Materials

XPP

-

ROM

-

Communication Services

XPP

-

ROM

-

Consumer Cyclical

XPP

-

ROM

-

Consumer Defensive

XPP

-

ROM

-

Energy

XPP

-

ROM
0.1%

Healthcare

XPP

-

ROM

-

Industrials

XPP

-

ROM
0.0%

Real Estate

XPP

-

ROM

-

Technology

XPP

-

ROM
55.2%

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

XPP
XPP Risk / Return Rank: 66
Overall Rank
XPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
Sortino Ratio Rank
XPP Omega Ratio Rank: 66
Omega Ratio Rank
XPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
Calmar Ratio Rank
XPP Martin Ratio Rank: 66
Martin Ratio Rank

ROM
ROM Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
ROM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ROM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
ROM Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
ROM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
ROM Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
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. 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.


XPPROMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.97

1.39

-0.42

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.42

3.63

-4.05

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.88

10.98

-11.85

XPP vs. ROM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XPP Sharpe Ratio is -0.37, which is lower than the ROM Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XPP and ROM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XPPROMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.37

2.65

-3.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.33

0.54

-0.87

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.10

0.82

-0.92

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.10

0.52

-0.62

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


XPPROMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.90%

-83.36%

-6.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-33.95%

-32.33%

-1.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-52.95%

-48.10%

-4.85%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-85.24%

-67.55%

-17.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-89.90%

-67.55%

-22.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-79.23%

-14.50%

-64.73%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-47.84%

-20.87%

-26.97%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.35%

10.66%

+5.69%

Volatility

XPP vs. ROM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) is 13.71%, while ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) has a volatility of 21.34%. 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


XPPROMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.71%

21.34%

-7.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

29.06%

36.89%

-7.83%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

39.35%

44.37%

-5.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

62.77%

52.01%

+10.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

54.92%

50.04%

+4.88%

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 2.76%, more than ROM's 0.16% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ROM
ProShares Ultra Technology
0.16%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
2.76%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 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ROM has higher volatility (21.34%) compared to XPP (13.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs ROM's -83.36%.

On 10-year performance, ROM leads with 40.84% vs -5.67% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, XPP has been the lower-risk option at 13.71%. 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 40.84% return vs -5.67%. 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 2.76%, compared with 0.16% for ROM.

XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while ROM tracks Dow Jones U.S. Technology Index (200%).

ROM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs -0.37), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

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