BATG.L vs. BATT.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BATG.L (L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF) and BATT.L (L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds tracking the Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index, from Legal & General Investment Management and Legal & General respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BATG.L returned 17.96%/yr vs 18.04%/yr for BATT.L. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.49% expense ratio.

Performance

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATG.L) and L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATT.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

BATG.L is traded in GBp, while BATT.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the BATT.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BATG.L having a 37.63% return and BATT.L slightly higher at 39.22%.

BATG.L

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: 2.71%
• YTD: 37.63%
• 6M: 44.30%
• 1Y: 135.61%
• 3Y*: 26.06%
• 5Y*: 17.96%
• 10Y*: —

BATT.L

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 3.24%
• YTD: 39.22%
• 6M: 44.29%
• 1Y: 137.34%
• 3Y*: 26.20%
• 5Y*: 18.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATG.L L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF	37.63%	60.42%	0.47%	2.83%	-3.91%	17.00%	75.38%	12.95%	-17.42%
BATT.L L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF	39.22%	59.22%	0.53%	3.36%	-3.98%	16.77%	76.00%	12.15%	-17.15%

Correlation

The correlation between BATG.L and BATT.L is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2018	0.95

The correlation between BATG.L and BATT.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BATG.L	BATT.L
Industrials	31.2%	33.3%
Basic Materials	24.4%	36.9%
Consumer Cyclical	20.1%	15.0%
Technology	17.6%	11.8%
Utilities	6.7%	3.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

BATG.L vs. BATT.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BATG.L

BATG.L Risk / Return Rank: 96
BATG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
BATG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BATG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
BATG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
BATG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

BATT.L

BATT.L Risk / Return Rank: 95
BATT.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
BATT.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
BATT.L Omega Ratio Rank: 93
BATT.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
BATT.L Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATG.L) and L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATT.L). 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.

	BATG.L	BATT.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.86	4.74	+0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.16	5.06	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.70	1.68	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.91	10.57	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.05	36.77	-2.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATG.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.86, which is comparable to the BATT.L Sharpe Ratio of 4.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATG.L and BATT.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BATG.L	BATT.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.86	4.74	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80	0.77	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.82	0.80	+0.02

Drawdowns

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATG.L drawdown since its inception was -33.37%, roughly equal to the maximum BATT.L drawdown of -33.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATG.L and BATT.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATG.L	BATT.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.37%	-33.29%	-0.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.61%	-12.91%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.37%	-33.29%	-0.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.37%	-33.29%	-0.08%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.75%	-1.81%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.99%	-8.89%	-0.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.97%	3.72%	+0.25%

Volatility

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATG.L) is 9.84%, while L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATT.L) has a volatility of 10.66%. This indicates that BATG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BATT.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATG.L	BATT.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.84%	10.66%	-0.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.92%	22.85%	-0.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.78%	28.86%	-1.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.51%	23.58%	-1.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.84%	23.55%	-0.71%

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BATG.L and BATT.L have an expense ratio of 0.49%.

Dividends

BATG.L vs. BATT.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BATG.L nor BATT.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATG.L and BATT.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, BATG.L and BATT.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, BATG.L or BATT.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.49% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATG.L or BATT.L?

BATG.L and BATT.L have the same expense ratio: 0.49% per year.

What is the main difference between BATG.L and BATT.L?

Both ETFs track Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General Investment Management and Legal & General.