XPP vs. UWM

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) and UWM (ProShares Ultra Russell2000) are both exchange-traded funds - XPP is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while UWM is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XPP returned -6.62%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for UWM. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

XPP vs. UWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XPP achieves a -19.65% return, which is significantly lower than UWM's 35.49% return. Over the past 10 years, XPP has underperformed UWM with an annualized return of -6.62%, while UWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% 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%

UWM

• 1D: -1.18%
• 1M: -2.44%
• 6M: 16.61%
• YTD: 35.49%
• 1Y: 61.30%
• 3Y*: 21.02%
• 5Y*: 3.30%
• 10Y*: 11.58%
• ALL TIME*: 7.22%

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

XPP vs. UWM - 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%
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000	35.49%	13.59%	11.32%	22.62%	-43.69%	23.91%	16.57%	48.62%	-25.89%	26.92%

Correlation

The correlation between XPP and UWM is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
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	0.52

The correlation between XPP and UWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.36 (3 years) to 0.52 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XPP vs. UWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XPP	UWM
Financial Services	44.0%	24.4%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Communication Services	-	0.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.1%
Energy	-	2.5%
Healthcare	-	9.2%
Industrials	-	6.0%
Real Estate	-	3.0%
Technology	-	6.4%
Utilities	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

XPP vs. UWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

XPP

XPP Risk / Return Rank: 6
XPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
XPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
XPP Omega Ratio Rank: 6
XPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
XPP Martin Ratio Rank: 5

UWM

UWM Risk / Return Rank: 66
UWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
UWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
UWM Omega Ratio Rank: 56
UWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
UWM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. UWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) and ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM). 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	UWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.50	1.61	-2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.51	2.22	-2.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.26	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.45	2.76	-3.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.97	9.40	-10.37

XPP vs. UWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XPP Sharpe Ratio is -0.50, which is lower than the UWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XPP and UWM, 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. UWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XPP drawdown since its inception was -89.90%, roughly equal to the maximum UWM drawdown of -88.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XPP and UWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	XPP	UWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.90%	-88.21%	-1.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.78%	-22.28%	-22.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-52.95%	-49.79%	-3.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-82.87%	-61.62%	-21.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.90%	-71.46%	-18.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-78.74%	-5.47%	-73.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-48.04%	-30.70%	-17.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.77%	6.54%	+14.23%

Volatility

XPP vs. UWM - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) has a higher volatility of 12.90% compared to ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) at 7.08%. This indicates that XPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XPP	UWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.90%	7.08%	+5.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.55%	28.07%	+1.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.24%	38.41%	+1.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	62.82%	44.95%	+17.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	54.80%	46.00%	+8.80%

XPP vs. UWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XPP and UWM have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

XPP vs. UWM - Dividend Comparison

XPP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.60%, more than UWM's 0.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000	0.83%	1.05%	1.16%	0.34%	0.40%	0.00%	0.07%	0.55%	0.41%	0.11%	0.27%	0.23%
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

Can I hold both XPP and UWM in my portfolio?

XPP and UWM have a correlation of 0.40, 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 UWM?

XPP has higher volatility (12.90%) compared to UWM (7.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XPP dropped -89.90% vs UWM's -88.21%.

Which ETF is better, XPP or UWM?

On 10-year performance, UWM leads with 11.58% vs -6.62% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, UWM has been the lower-risk option at 7.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XPP or UWM?

Over the 10-year period, UWM has performed better with a 11.58% return vs -6.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XPP or UWM?

XPP and UWM have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 0.83% for UWM.

What is the main difference between XPP and UWM?

XPP is categorized as China Equities, while UWM is Leveraged Equities. XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%), while UWM tracks Russell 2000 Index (200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 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.