ION vs. NBET

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and NBET (Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. ION is passively managed, while NBET is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ION returned 18.91%/yr vs 20.75%/yr for NBET. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for NBET.

Performance

ION vs. NBET - 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 Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET). 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 lower than NBET's 24.24% return.

ION

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

NBET

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: -2.79%
• YTD: 24.24%
• 6M: 21.82%
• 1Y: 27.14%
• 3Y*: 20.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ION vs. NBET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	14.02%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.86%
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	24.24%	5.87%	30.30%	7.48%	-5.70%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and NBET is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 2, 2022	0.33

The correlation between ION and NBET shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (1 year) to 0.33 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ION vs. NBET - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	NBET
Basic Materials	14.5%	0.9%
Financial Services	13.0%	-
Energy	2.4%	89.0%
Real Estate	2.4%	-
Healthcare	1.7%	-
Industrials	1.6%	2.6%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	8.4%

Return for Risk

ION vs. NBET — 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

NBET

NBET Risk / Return Rank: 59
NBET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
NBET Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
NBET Omega Ratio Rank: 49
NBET Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
NBET Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. NBET - 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 Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET). 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	NBET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.27	1.87	+1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.45	2.49	+0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.31	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.33	3.99	+1.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.79	10.51	+8.28
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. NBET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 3.27, which is higher than the NBET Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION and NBET, 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	NBET	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.27	1.87	+1.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.39	0.73	-0.34

Drawdowns

ION vs. NBET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, which is greater than NBET's maximum drawdown of -18.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and NBET.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	NBET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-18.72%	-33.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.30%	-6.84%	-16.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.47%	-18.72%	-27.75%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.99%	-4.32%	-9.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.70%	-5.06%	-18.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.59%	2.59%	+4.00%

Volatility

ION vs. NBET - Volatility Comparison

Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a higher volatility of 12.06% compared to Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) at 5.82%. This indicates that ION's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NBET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ION	NBET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.06%	5.82%	+6.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.90%	11.12%	+18.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.92%	14.62%	+23.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.08%	19.54%	+11.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.08%	19.54%	+11.54%

ION vs. NBET - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than NBET's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. NBET - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, less than NBET's 2.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.40%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	2.34%	2.70%	2.43%	1.22%	0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ION and NBET in my portfolio?

ION and NBET have a correlation of -0.03, 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 NBET?

ION has higher volatility (12.06%) compared to NBET (5.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs NBET's -18.72%.

Which ETF is better, ION or NBET?

On 3-year performance, NBET leads with 20.75% vs 18.91% for ION. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, NBET has been the lower-risk option at 5.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or NBET?

Over the 3-year period, NBET has performed better with a 20.75% return vs 18.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or NBET?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for NBET.

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

NBET has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 1.40% for ION.

What is the main difference between ION and NBET?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Neuberger Berman. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.65% for NBET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.27 vs 1.87), 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.