ION vs. BITU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and BITU (Proshares Ultra Bitcoin ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ION is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while BITU is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the Bloomberg Bitcoin Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ION returned 123.41% vs -73.07% for BITU. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BITU.

Performance

ION vs. BITU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and Proshares Ultra Bitcoin ETF (BITU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ION achieves a 14.02% return, which is significantly higher than BITU's -52.92% return.

ION

• 1D: -3.20%
• 1M: -9.27%
• YTD: 14.02%
• 6M: 27.44%
• 1Y: 123.41%
• 3Y*: 18.91%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BITU

• 1D: -5.58%
• 1M: -34.84%
• YTD: -52.92%
• 6M: -59.11%
• 1Y: -73.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ION vs. BITU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	14.02%	108.37%	-15.20%
BITU Proshares Ultra Bitcoin ETF	-52.92%	-37.07%	37.90%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and BITU is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2024	0.26

ION vs. BITU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	BITU
Basic Materials	14.5%	-
Financial Services	13.0%	4.2%
Energy	2.4%	-
Real Estate	2.4%	-
Healthcare	1.7%	-
Industrials	1.6%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ION vs. BITU — Risk / Return Rank

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

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 84
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 75
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BITU

BITU Risk / Return Rank: 2
BITU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BITU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
BITU Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BITU Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
BITU Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

ION vs. BITU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and Proshares Ultra Bitcoin ETF (BITU). 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.

	ION	BITU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.27	-0.84	+4.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.45	-1.44	+4.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	0.84	+0.61
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.33	-0.93	+6.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.79	-1.47	+20.26
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ION vs. BITU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 3.27, which is higher than the BITU Sharpe Ratio of -0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION and BITU, 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

	ION	BITU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.27	-0.84	+4.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.39	-0.35	+0.74

Drawdowns

ION vs. BITU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, smaller than the maximum BITU drawdown of -78.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and BITU.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	BITU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-78.94%	+26.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.30%	-78.94%	+55.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.47%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.99%	-78.94%	+64.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.70%	-34.49%	+10.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.59%	49.84%	-43.25%

Volatility

ION vs. BITU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) is 12.06%, while Proshares Ultra Bitcoin ETF (BITU) has a volatility of 18.99%. This indicates that ION experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BITU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ION	BITU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.06%	18.99%	-6.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.90%	69.41%	-39.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.92%	87.00%	-49.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.08%	97.45%	-66.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.08%	97.45%	-66.37%

ION vs. BITU - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than BITU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. BITU - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, less than BITU's 83.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BITU Proshares Ultra Bitcoin ETF	83.36%	50.23%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.40%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ION and BITU in my portfolio?

ION and BITU have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ION or BITU?

BITU has higher volatility (18.99%) compared to ION (12.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs BITU's -78.94%.

Which ETF is better, ION or BITU?

On 1-year performance, ION leads with 123.41% vs -73.07% for BITU. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, ION has been the lower-risk option at 12.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or BITU?

Over the 1-year period, ION has performed better with a 123.41% return vs -73.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or BITU?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BITU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ION or BITU?

BITU has the higher dividend yield at 83.36%, compared with 1.40% for ION.

What is the main difference between ION and BITU?

ION is categorized as Energy Equities, while BITU is Cryptocurrency. ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while BITU tracks Bloomberg Bitcoin Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.95% for BITU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.27 vs -0.84), 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.