BATT vs. ARKF

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and ARKF (ARK Fintech Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BATT is a Commodity Producers Equities fund actively managed by Amplify, while ARKF is a Blockchain fund actively managed by ARK. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BATT returned 1.94%/yr vs -5.06%/yr for ARKF. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BATT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for ARKF.

Performance

BATT vs. ARKF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BATT achieves a 19.49% return, which is significantly higher than ARKF's -18.31% return.

BATT

• 1D: 3.19%
• 1M: -6.31%
• YTD: 19.49%
• 6M: 21.87%
• 1Y: 88.06%
• 3Y*: 10.63%
• 5Y*: 1.94%
• 10Y*: —

ARKF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -7.34%
• YTD: -18.31%
• 6M: -21.31%
• 1Y: -11.63%
• 3Y*: 23.97%
• 5Y*: -5.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

BATT vs. ARKF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	19.49%	59.70%	-13.93%	-7.05%	-32.25%	16.52%	44.43%	-10.84%
ARKF ARK Fintech Innovation ETF	-18.31%	28.67%	34.34%	93.27%	-65.07%	-17.82%	108.03%	20.45%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and ARKF is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.53
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2019	0.61

The correlation between BATT and ARKF shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.62 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BATT vs. ARKF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BATT	ARKF
Basic Materials	57.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	18.9%	16.4%
Industrials	16.9%	-
Technology	5.6%	42.7%
Communication Services	0.0%	12.2%
Financial Services	0.0%	28.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BATT vs. ARKF — Risk / Return Rank

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

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 86
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 80
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 88

ARKF

ARKF Risk / Return Rank: 7
ARKF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
ARKF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
ARKF Omega Ratio Rank: 7
ARKF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
ARKF Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

BATT vs. ARKF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF). 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.

	BATT	ARKF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	-0.35	+3.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.04	-0.28	+3.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	0.97	+0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.03	-0.31	+5.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.97	-0.57	+17.54

BATT vs. ARKF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is higher than the ARKF Sharpe Ratio of -0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and ARKF, 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

BATT vs. ARKF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, smaller than the maximum ARKF drawdown of -78.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and ARKF.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATT	ARKF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.38%	-78.63%	+9.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.03%	-38.50%	+21.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.65%	-38.50%	-9.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.98%	-75.30%	+13.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.54%	-38.77%	+30.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.68%	-34.95%	+0.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.04%	21.00%	-15.96%

Volatility

BATT vs. ARKF - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) has a higher volatility of 13.45% compared to ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF) at 10.36%. This indicates that BATT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ARKF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATT	ARKF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.45%	10.36%	+3.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.58%	25.14%	+1.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.35%	33.69%	-1.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.87%	42.87%	-13.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.74%	39.77%	-9.03%

BATT vs. ARKF - Expense Ratio Comparison

BATT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than ARKF's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BATT vs. ARKF - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, more than ARKF's 0.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ARKF ARK Fintech Innovation ETF	0.11%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.37%	1.25%	0.00%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.55%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATT and ARKF in my portfolio?

BATT and ARKF have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BATT or ARKF?

BATT has higher volatility (13.45%) compared to ARKF (10.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs ARKF's -78.63%.

Which ETF is better, BATT or ARKF?

On 5-year performance, BATT leads with 1.94% vs -5.06% for ARKF. On fees, BATT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ARKF has been the lower-risk option at 10.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BATT or ARKF?

Over the 5-year period, BATT has performed better with a 1.94% return vs -5.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATT or ARKF?

BATT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for ARKF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BATT or ARKF?

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.11% for ARKF.

What is the main difference between BATT and ARKF?

BATT is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while ARKF is Blockchain. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and ARK. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BATT and 0.75% for ARKF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs -0.35), 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.