HCOW vs. BATT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

HCOW (Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Amplify, while BATT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund actively managed by Amplify. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, HCOW returned 23.43% vs 49.49% for BATT. Their 0.46 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. HCOW charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BATT.

Performance

HCOW vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF (HCOW) 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, HCOW achieves a 10.71% return, which is significantly higher than BATT's 3.91% return.

HCOW

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: 5.12%
• 6M: 9.66%
• YTD: 10.71%
• 1Y: 23.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.16%

BATT

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: -5.22%
• 6M: -5.47%
• YTD: 3.91%
• 1Y: 49.49%
• 3Y*: 3.98%
• 5Y*: -2.05%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.93%

*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	$677.09K	$717.59K	$1.32M
HCOW Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF	$145.82K	$136.25K	$131.36K

HCOW vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HCOW Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF	10.71%	5.76%	7.63%	4.66%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	3.91%	59.70%	-13.93%	-7.61%

Correlation

The correlation between HCOW and BATT is 0.29, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 20, 2023	0.46

The correlation between HCOW and BATT shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.46 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HCOW vs. BATT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HCOW	BATT
Financial Services	20.1%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	17.8%	20.6%
Technology	17.1%	3.1%
Industrials	15.7%	17.7%
Healthcare	10.9%	-
Energy	8.4%	-
Basic Materials	5.8%	57.4%
Communication Services	2.6%	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	-
Utilities	2.3%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

HCOW vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

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

HCOW

HCOW Risk / Return Rank: 76
HCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
HCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
HCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 68
HCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
HCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 83

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 58
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 58
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

HCOW vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF (HCOW) 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.

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.

	HCOW	BATT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	1.46	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	1.94	+0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.25	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.42	2.13	+1.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.36	6.06	+5.30

HCOW vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HCOW 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.

Drawdowns

HCOW vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HCOW drawdown since its inception was -24.15%, smaller than the maximum BATT drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HCOW and BATT.

Drawdown Indicators

	HCOW	BATT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.15%	-69.38%	+45.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.29%	-23.02%	+16.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-45.26%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.92%	-20.47%	+19.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.73%	-34.40%	+29.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.89%	8.08%	-6.19%

Volatility

HCOW vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF (HCOW) is 4.10%, while Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) has a volatility of 10.06%. This indicates that HCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BATT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HCOW	BATT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.10%	10.06%	-5.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.13%	28.05%	-18.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.86%	33.66%	-19.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.39%	30.00%	-12.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.39%	30.78%	-13.39%

HCOW vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

HCOW has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than BATT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

HCOW vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

HCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.56%, more than BATT's 1.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.78%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
HCOW Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF	11.56%	10.88%	8.13%	1.99%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HCOW and BATT in my portfolio?

HCOW and BATT have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HCOW or BATT?

BATT has higher volatility (10.06%) compared to HCOW (4.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HCOW dropped -24.15% vs BATT's -69.38%.

Which ETF is better, HCOW or BATT?

On 1-year performance, BATT leads with 49.49% vs 23.43% for HCOW. On fees, BATT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, HCOW has been the lower-risk option at 4.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HCOW or BATT?

Over the 1-year period, BATT has performed better with a 49.49% return vs 23.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HCOW or BATT?

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

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

HCOW has the higher dividend yield at 11.56%, compared with 1.78% for BATT.

What is the main difference between HCOW and BATT?

HCOW is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while BATT is Lithium & Battery Metals. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for HCOW and 0.59% for BATT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 1.46), 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.