BATT vs. CSNR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and CSNR (Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BATT returned 103.56% vs 47.34% for CSNR. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BATT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CSNR.

Performance

BATT vs. CSNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BATT achieves a 26.16% return, which is significantly higher than CSNR's 21.88% return.

BATT

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: 4.50%
• YTD: 26.16%
• 6M: 29.61%
• 1Y: 103.56%
• 3Y*: 14.36%
• 5Y*: 3.45%
• 10Y*: —

CSNR

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 21.88%
• 6M: 24.62%
• 1Y: 47.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BATT vs. CSNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	26.16%	59.34%
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	21.88%	26.55%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and CSNR is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2025	0.61

The correlation between BATT and CSNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BATT vs. CSNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 87
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 82
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

CSNR

CSNR Risk / Return Rank: 86
CSNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CSNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CSNR Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CSNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CSNR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. CSNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR). 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.

	BATT	CSNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.38	2.81	+0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	3.59	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.48	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.12	5.67	+0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.20	22.27	-0.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BATT vs. CSNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 3.38, which is comparable to the CSNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and CSNR, 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

	BATT	CSNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.38	2.81	+0.57
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.01	1.97	-1.96

Drawdowns

BATT vs. CSNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, which is greater than CSNR's maximum drawdown of -15.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and CSNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATT	CSNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.38%	-15.33%	-54.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.03%	-8.39%	-8.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.65%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.44%	-1.42%	-2.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.78%	-1.82%	-32.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.68%	2.13%	+2.55%

Volatility

BATT vs. CSNR - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) has a higher volatility of 10.29% compared to Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) at 4.24%. This indicates that BATT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATT	CSNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.29%	4.24%	+6.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.67%	13.65%	+11.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.80%	16.94%	+13.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.57%	19.77%	+9.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.60%	19.77%	+10.83%

BATT vs. CSNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BATT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than CSNR's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BATT vs. CSNR - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than CSNR's 1.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.47%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	1.98%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATT and CSNR in my portfolio?

BATT and CSNR have a correlation of 0.57, 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 CSNR?

BATT has higher volatility (10.29%) compared to CSNR (4.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs CSNR's -15.33%.

Which ETF is better, BATT or CSNR?

On 1-year performance, BATT leads with 103.56% vs 47.34% for CSNR. On fees, CSNR is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CSNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BATT or CSNR?

Over the 1-year period, BATT has performed better with a 103.56% return vs 47.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATT or CSNR?

CSNR is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BATT.

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

CSNR has the higher dividend yield at 1.98%, compared with 1.47% for BATT.

What is the main difference between BATT and CSNR?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Cohen & Steers. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BATT and 0.50% for CSNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.38 vs 2.81), 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.