ION vs. LIT

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds - ION tracks the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net while LIT tracks the Solactive Global Lithium Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ION returned 17.02%/yr vs 10.70%/yr for LIT. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

ION vs. LIT - 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 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, ION achieves a 8.52% return, which is significantly lower than LIT's 27.30% return.

ION

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: -6.82%
• YTD: 8.52%
• 6M: 8.91%
• 1Y: 111.43%
• 3Y*: 17.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LIT

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -3.18%
• YTD: 27.30%
• 6M: 26.02%
• 1Y: 129.27%
• 3Y*: 10.70%
• 5Y*: 4.07%
• 10Y*: 14.81%

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

ION vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	8.52%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	27.30%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-14.85%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and LIT is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.86

The correlation between ION and LIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

ION vs. LIT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	LIT
Basic Materials	14.1%	49.9%
Financial Services	13.3%	-
Energy	2.5%	-
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Healthcare	1.9%	-
Industrials	1.7%	25.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Technology	-	16.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ION vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 80
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 71
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 78

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 93
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. LIT - 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 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.

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.

	ION	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	3.84	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	4.14	-1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.55	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	7.90	-3.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.58	28.08	-13.50

ION vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is comparable to the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 3.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION 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.

Drawdowns

ION vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, smaller than the maximum LIT drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-65.91%	+13.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.30%	-16.46%	-6.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.47%	-53.01%	+6.54%
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	-18.15%	-10.99%	-7.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.60%	-33.56%	+9.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.67%	4.62%	+3.05%

Volatility

ION vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a higher volatility of 13.14% compared to Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) at 10.69%. This indicates that ION'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

	ION	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.14%	10.69%	+2.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.78%	23.79%	+7.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.41%	33.94%	+5.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.50%	32.03%	-0.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.50%	30.78%	+0.72%

ION vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than LIT's 0.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.47%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.38%	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 ION and LIT in my portfolio?

ION and LIT have a correlation of 0.90, 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 LIT?

ION has higher volatility (13.14%) compared to LIT (10.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, ION or LIT?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 17.02% vs 10.70% for LIT. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 10.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or LIT?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 17.02% return vs 10.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or LIT?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.38% for LIT.

What is the main difference between ION and LIT?

ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs 2.85), 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.