BATT vs. ZSB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds. BATT is actively managed, while ZSB is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BATT returned 10.67%/yr vs 1.91%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

BATT vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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 ZSB's 4.41% return.

BATT

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

ZSB

• 1D: -2.97%
• 1M: -7.84%
• YTD: 4.41%
• 6M: 6.25%
• 1Y: 59.70%
• 3Y*: 1.91%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BATT vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	14.35%	59.70%	-13.93%	-13.34%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	4.41%	64.34%	-19.70%	-31.38%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and ZSB 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	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.44

Return for Risk

BATT vs. ZSB — 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

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 71
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	2.26	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.88	2.71	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.42	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.78	3.58	+1.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.62	9.56	+6.06

BATT vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is comparable to the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and ZSB, 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. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, which is greater than ZSB's maximum drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BATT	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.38%	-49.26%	-20.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.03%	-16.75%	-0.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.65%	-43.22%	-4.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.48%	-11.97%	-0.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.60%	-30.58%	-4.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.20%	6.27%	-1.07%

Volatility

BATT vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) has a higher volatility of 12.72% compared to USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) at 5.63%. This indicates that BATT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BATT	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.72%	5.63%	+7.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.15%	22.46%	+4.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.69%	26.67%	+6.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.95%	19.62%	+10.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.76%	19.62%	+11.14%

BATT vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BATT and ZSB have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

BATT vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, more than ZSB's 0.88% 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%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.88%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BATT and ZSB in my portfolio?

BATT and ZSB 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 ZSB?

BATT has higher volatility (12.72%) compared to ZSB (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, BATT or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, BATT leads with 10.67% vs 1.91% for ZSB. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BATT or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, BATT has performed better with a 10.67% return vs 1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BATT or ZSB?

BATT and ZSB have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

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

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.88% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between BATT and ZSB?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and USCF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 2.26), 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.