COPJ vs. BATT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

COPJ (Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. COPJ is passively managed, while BATT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, COPJ returned 47.64%/yr vs 14.99%/yr for BATT. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. COPJ charges 0.78%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BATT.

Performance

COPJ vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COPJ achieves a 20.64% return, which is significantly lower than BATT's 28.26% return.

COPJ

• 1D: 3.38%
• 1M: 15.54%
• YTD: 20.64%
• 6M: 40.03%
• 1Y: 137.28%
• 3Y*: 47.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BATT

• 1D: 2.49%
• 1M: 4.61%
• YTD: 28.26%
• 6M: 34.52%
• 1Y: 108.99%
• 3Y*: 14.99%
• 5Y*: 4.16%
• 10Y*: —

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

COPJ vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
COPJ Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF	20.64%	140.63%	11.07%	-5.30%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	28.26%	59.70%	-13.93%	-23.94%

Correlation

The correlation between COPJ and BATT is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2023	0.70

The correlation between COPJ and BATT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

COPJ vs. BATT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	COPJ	BATT
Basic Materials	100.0%	57.0%
Technology	3.6%	5.6%
Communication Services	-	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	18.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	16.9%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

COPJ vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

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

COPJ

COPJ Risk / Return Rank: 79
COPJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
COPJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
COPJ Omega Ratio Rank: 79
COPJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
COPJ Martin Ratio Rank: 68

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 89
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
BATT 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.

COPJ vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). 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.

	COPJ	BATT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.30	3.57	-0.27
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	3.83	-0.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.52	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.38	6.43	-2.05
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.85	23.40	-10.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

COPJ vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COPJ Sharpe Ratio is 3.30, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 3.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COPJ and BATT, 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

	COPJ	BATT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.30	3.57	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.16	0.02	+1.14

Drawdowns

COPJ vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COPJ drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, smaller than the maximum BATT drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COPJ and BATT.

Drawdown Indicators

	COPJ	BATT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.28%	-69.38%	+37.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.28%	-17.03%	-15.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-32.28%	-47.65%	+15.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.78%	-1.83%	-5.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.86%	-34.80%	+22.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.00%	4.68%	+6.32%

Volatility

COPJ vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ) has a higher volatility of 14.94% compared to Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) at 10.27%. This indicates that COPJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BATT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	COPJ	BATT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.94%	10.27%	+4.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.86%	24.60%	+10.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.90%	30.74%	+11.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.71%	29.57%	+5.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.71%	30.60%	+4.11%

COPJ vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

COPJ has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is higher than BATT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

COPJ vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

COPJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.59%, more than BATT's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.44%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
COPJ Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF	9.59%	11.57%	11.64%	2.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COPJ and BATT in my portfolio?

COPJ and BATT have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, COPJ or BATT?

COPJ has higher volatility (14.94%) compared to BATT (10.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COPJ dropped -32.28% vs BATT's -69.38%.

Which ETF is better, COPJ or BATT?

On 3-year performance, COPJ leads with 47.64% vs 14.99% for BATT. On fees, BATT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 10.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, COPJ or BATT?

Over the 3-year period, COPJ has performed better with a 47.64% return vs 14.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, COPJ or BATT?

BATT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for COPJ.

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

COPJ has the higher dividend yield at 9.59%, compared with 1.44% for BATT.

What is the main difference between COPJ and BATT?

They also come from different issuers: Sprott and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for COPJ and 0.59% for BATT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.57 vs 3.30), 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.