BATT vs. LITP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds. BATT is actively managed, while LITP is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BATT returned 10.67%/yr vs -5.46%/yr for LITP. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BATT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LITP.

Performance

BATT vs. LITP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BATT achieves a 14.35% return, which is significantly higher than LITP's 9.54% return.

BATT

• 1D: -5.00%
• 1M: -5.57%
• YTD: 14.35%
• 6M: 13.17%
• 1Y: 80.97%
• 3Y*: 10.67%
• 5Y*: 1.08%
• 10Y*: —

LITP

• 1D: -3.44%
• 1M: -15.71%
• YTD: 9.54%
• 6M: 4.35%
• 1Y: 167.73%
• 3Y*: -5.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BATT vs. LITP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	14.35%	59.70%	-13.93%	-23.99%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	9.54%	94.65%	-43.85%	-36.71%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and LITP is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.75

The correlation between BATT and LITP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

BATT vs. LITP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BATT	LITP
Basic Materials	58.7%	100.0%
Consumer Cyclical	18.0%	-
Industrials	16.8%	-
Technology	5.1%	-
Financial Services	0.3%	-
Communication Services	0.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BATT vs. LITP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 77
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 69
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 79
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
LITP 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. LITP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP). 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	LITP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	2.80	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.88	3.06	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.78	5.42	-0.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.62	14.80	+0.82

BATT vs. LITP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is comparable to the LITP Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and LITP, 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. LITP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, smaller than the maximum LITP drawdown of -74.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and LITP.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATT	LITP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.38%	-74.94%	+5.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.03%	-31.12%	+14.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.65%	-74.31%	+26.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.48%	-27.35%	+14.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.60%	-42.41%	+7.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.20%	11.39%	-6.19%

Volatility

BATT vs. LITP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) is 12.72%, while Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) has a volatility of 17.50%. This indicates that BATT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LITP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATT	LITP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.72%	17.50%	-4.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.15%	42.23%	-15.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.69%	60.23%	-27.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.95%	47.79%	-17.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.76%	47.79%	-17.03%

BATT vs. LITP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BATT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than LITP's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

BATT vs. LITP - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, less than LITP's 6.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.62%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	6.76%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATT and LITP in my portfolio?

BATT and LITP have a correlation of 0.70, 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 LITP?

LITP has higher volatility (17.50%) compared to BATT (12.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs LITP's -74.94%.

Which ETF is better, BATT or LITP?

On 3-year performance, BATT leads with 10.67% vs -5.46% for LITP. On fees, BATT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 12.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BATT or LITP?

Over the 3-year period, BATT has performed better with a 10.67% return vs -5.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATT or LITP?

BATT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LITP.

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

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 6.76%, compared with 1.62% for BATT.

What is the main difference between BATT and LITP?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BATT and 0.65% for LITP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.49), 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.