ICOP vs. BATT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICOP (iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. ICOP is passively managed, while BATT is actively managed. Over the past year, ICOP returned 102.60% vs 103.56% for BATT. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICOP charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BATT.

Performance

ICOP vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ICOP having a 27.29% return and BATT slightly lower at 26.16%.

ICOP

• 1D: -3.29%
• 1M: 17.09%
• YTD: 27.29%
• 6M: 37.08%
• 1Y: 102.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BATT

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: 4.50%
• YTD: 26.16%
• 6M: 29.61%
• 1Y: 103.56%
• 3Y*: 14.36%
• 5Y*: 3.45%
• 10Y*: —

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

ICOP vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF	27.29%	78.01%	1.10%	8.08%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	26.16%	59.70%	-13.93%	-13.75%

Correlation

The correlation between ICOP and BATT is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2023	0.77

The correlation between ICOP and BATT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICOP vs. BATT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

ICOP vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICOP

ICOP Risk / Return Rank: 74
ICOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
ICOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ICOP Omega Ratio Rank: 68
ICOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
ICOP Martin Ratio Rank: 75

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 87
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 82
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

ICOP vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) 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.

	ICOP	BATT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.77	3.38	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	3.69	-0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.50	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.95	6.12	-2.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.50	22.20	-7.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICOP vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICOP Sharpe Ratio is 2.77, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 3.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICOP 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

	ICOP	BATT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.77	3.38	-0.62
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.12	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	0.01	+1.06

Drawdowns

ICOP vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICOP drawdown since its inception was -38.67%, smaller than the maximum BATT drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICOP and BATT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICOP	BATT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.67%	-69.38%	+30.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.13%	-17.03%	-9.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-47.65%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.29%	-3.44%	+0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.67%	-34.78%	+23.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	4.68%	+2.42%

Volatility

ICOP vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) has a higher volatility of 13.69% compared to Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) at 10.29%. This indicates that ICOP'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

	ICOP	BATT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.69%	10.29%	+3.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.28%	24.67%	+7.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.29%	30.80%	+6.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.77%	29.57%	+4.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.77%	30.60%	+3.17%

ICOP vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICOP has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than BATT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICOP vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

ICOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.63%, more than BATT's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.47%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF	1.63%	2.08%	1.87%	2.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICOP and BATT in my portfolio?

ICOP and BATT have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ICOP or BATT?

ICOP has higher volatility (13.69%) compared to BATT (10.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICOP dropped -38.67% vs BATT's -69.38%.

Which ETF is better, ICOP or BATT?

On 1-year performance, BATT leads with 103.56% vs 102.60% for ICOP. On fees, ICOP is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 10.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICOP or BATT?

Over the 1-year period, BATT has performed better with a 103.56% return vs 102.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICOP or BATT?

ICOP is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BATT.

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

ICOP has the higher dividend yield at 1.63%, compared with 1.47% for BATT.

What is the main difference between ICOP and BATT?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for ICOP and 0.59% for BATT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.38 vs 2.77), 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.