BATT vs. EMET

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. BATT is actively managed, while EMET is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BATT returned 14.36%/yr vs 21.61%/yr for EMET. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BATT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for EMET.

Performance

BATT vs. EMET - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BATT having a 26.16% return and EMET slightly lower at 24.96%.

BATT

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

EMET

• 1D: -3.09%
• 1M: 10.55%
• YTD: 24.96%
• 6M: 36.66%
• 1Y: 116.88%
• 3Y*: 21.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BATT vs. EMET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	26.16%	59.70%	-13.93%	-7.05%	-32.25%	-9.25%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	24.96%	81.22%	-12.81%	-12.28%	-17.15%	-0.14%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and EMET is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2021	0.83

The correlation between BATT and EMET has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BATT vs. EMET — 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

EMET

EMET Risk / Return Rank: 83
EMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
EMET Omega Ratio Rank: 80
EMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMET Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. EMET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET). 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	EMET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.38	3.27	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	3.49	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.48	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.12	4.60	+1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.20	15.70	+6.50
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. EMET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 3.38, which is comparable to the EMET Sharpe Ratio of 3.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and EMET, 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	EMET	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.38	3.27	+0.11
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	0.25	-0.24

Drawdowns

BATT vs. EMET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, which is greater than EMET's maximum drawdown of -53.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and EMET.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATT	EMET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.38%	-53.05%	-16.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.03%	-25.58%	+8.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.65%	-40.50%	-7.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.44%	-5.29%	+1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.78%	-24.83%	-9.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.68%	7.47%	-2.79%

Volatility

BATT vs. EMET - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) is 10.29%, while VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a volatility of 12.59%. This indicates that BATT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATT	EMET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.29%	12.59%	-2.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.67%	30.81%	-6.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.80%	35.96%	-5.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.57%	32.96%	-3.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.60%	32.96%	-2.36%

BATT vs. EMET - Expense Ratio Comparison

BATT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than EMET's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

BATT vs. EMET - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, which matches EMET's 1.47% 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%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	1.47%	1.84%	1.89%	2.02%	2.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATT and EMET in my portfolio?

BATT and EMET have a correlation of 0.85, 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 EMET?

EMET has higher volatility (12.59%) compared to BATT (10.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs EMET's -53.05%.

Which ETF is better, BATT or EMET?

On 3-year performance, EMET leads with 21.61% vs 14.36% for BATT. On fees, BATT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 10.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BATT or EMET?

Over the 3-year period, EMET has performed better with a 21.61% return vs 14.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATT or EMET?

BATT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMET.

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

BATT and EMET have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.47%.

What is the main difference between BATT and EMET?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BATT and 0.61% for EMET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.38 vs 3.27), 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.