BATT vs. ION

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds. BATT is actively managed, while ION is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BATT returned 6.55%/yr vs 12.14%/yr for ION. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BATT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

BATT vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BATT achieves a 8.33% return, which is significantly higher than ION's -3.87% return.

BATT

• 1D: 3.46%
• 1M: -1.19%
• 6M: -4.72%
• YTD: 8.33%
• 1Y: 53.79%
• 3Y*: 6.55%
• 5Y*: -1.58%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.43%

ION

• 1D: 4.37%
• 1M: -2.88%
• 6M: -16.32%
• YTD: -3.87%
• 1Y: 59.15%
• 3Y*: 12.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.49%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	$654.74K	$762.69K	$1.26M
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	$74.53K	$85.36K	$240.18K

BATT vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	8.33%	59.70%	-13.93%	-7.05%	-11.89%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	-3.87%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and ION is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.83

The correlation between BATT and ION has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

BATT vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BATT	ION
Basic Materials	57.4%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	20.6%	3.6%
Industrials	17.7%	1.9%
Technology	3.1%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	13.1%
Communication Services	0.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	2.6%
Healthcare	-	5.6%
Real Estate	-	2.7%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BATT vs. ION — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 55
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 53
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 51

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 47
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 48
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 40

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BATT vs. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.50	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	1.99	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.25	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	1.77	+0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.54	4.74	+1.81

BATT vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the ION Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and ION, 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. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, which is greater than ION's maximum drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATT	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.38%	-52.08%	-17.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.02%	-33.66%	+10.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.26%	-42.44%	-2.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.08%	-27.49%	+10.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.38%	-23.77%	-10.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.25%	12.53%	-4.28%

Volatility

BATT vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) have volatilities of 10.55% and 10.43%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATT	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.55%	10.43%	+0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.41%	29.73%	-2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.77%	39.70%	-5.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.04%	31.63%	-1.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.79%	31.63%	-0.84%

BATT vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

BATT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ION's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

BATT vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, more than ION's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.71%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.55%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATT and ION in my portfolio?

BATT and ION have a correlation of 0.82, 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 ION?

BATT has higher volatility (10.55%) compared to ION (10.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, BATT or ION?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 12.14% vs 6.55% for BATT. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, ION has been the lower-risk option at 10.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BATT or ION?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 12.14% return vs 6.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATT or ION?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BATT.

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

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.71%, compared with 1.55% for ION.

What is the main difference between BATT and ION?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BATT and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.50), 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.