EMET vs. LIT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds - EMET tracks the MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index while LIT tracks the Solactive Global Lithium Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMET returned 21.61%/yr vs 11.20%/yr for LIT. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMET charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

EMET vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMET achieves a 24.96% return, which is significantly lower than LIT's 30.84% return.

EMET

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

LIT

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: -2.59%
• YTD: 30.84%
• 6M: 34.89%
• 1Y: 135.24%
• 3Y*: 11.20%
• 5Y*: 4.98%
• 10Y*: 14.81%

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

EMET vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	24.96%	81.22%	-12.81%	-12.28%	-17.15%	-0.14%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	30.84%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	-11.76%

Correlation

The correlation between EMET and LIT is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2021	0.78

The correlation between EMET and LIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMET vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 94
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

EMET vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). 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.

	EMET	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.27	4.16	-0.89
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	4.45	-0.96
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.59	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.60	10.37	-5.78
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.70	35.19	-19.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMET vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMET Sharpe Ratio is 3.27, which is comparable to the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 4.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMET and LIT, 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

	EMET	LIT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.27	4.16	-0.89
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.16	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	0.27	-0.02

Drawdowns

EMET vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMET drawdown since its inception was -53.05%, smaller than the maximum LIT drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMET and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMET	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.05%	-65.91%	+12.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.58%	-13.11%	-12.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.50%	-53.01%	+12.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-65.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-65.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.29%	-8.53%	+3.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.83%	-33.63%	+8.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.47%	3.86%	+3.61%

Volatility

EMET vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a higher volatility of 12.59% compared to Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) at 8.67%. This indicates that EMET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMET	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.59%	8.67%	+3.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.81%	22.00%	+8.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.96%	32.68%	+3.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.96%	31.83%	+1.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.96%	30.66%	+2.30%

EMET vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMET has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMET vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

EMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than LIT's 0.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.37%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMET and LIT in my portfolio?

EMET and LIT have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMET or LIT?

EMET has higher volatility (12.59%) compared to LIT (8.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMET dropped -53.05% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, EMET or LIT?

On 3-year performance, EMET leads with 21.61% vs 11.20% for LIT. On fees, EMET is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 8.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMET or LIT?

Over the 3-year period, EMET has performed better with a 21.61% return vs 11.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMET or LIT?

EMET is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

EMET has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.37% for LIT.

What is the main difference between EMET and LIT?

EMET tracks MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index, while LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for EMET and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.16 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.