LIMI vs. LITP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LIMI (Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF) and LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIMI is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the BITA Global Lithium and Battery Metals Select Index, while LITP is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, LIMI returned 160.78% vs 218.79% for LITP. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LIMI charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LITP.

Performance

LIMI vs. LITP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF (LIMI) and Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LIMI achieves a 19.24% return, which is significantly lower than LITP's 28.96% return.

LIMI

• 1D: -2.97%
• 1M: -7.76%
• YTD: 19.24%
• 6M: 32.07%
• 1Y: 160.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LITP

• 1D: -4.66%
• 1M: -7.17%
• YTD: 28.96%
• 6M: 41.58%
• 1Y: 218.79%
• 3Y*: -0.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LIMI vs. LITP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LIMI Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF	19.24%	91.22%	-1.18%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	28.96%	94.65%	-6.41%

Correlation

The correlation between LIMI and LITP is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2024	0.87

The correlation between LIMI and LITP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LIMI vs. LITP — Risk / Return Rank

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

LIMI

LIMI Risk / Return Rank: 89
LIMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
LIMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
LIMI Omega Ratio Rank: 81
LIMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LIMI Martin Ratio Rank: 91

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 87
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 74
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

LIMI vs. LITP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF (LIMI) and Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP). 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.

	LIMI	LITP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.71	3.78	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.82	3.67	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.45	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.03	7.08	-0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.57	21.48	+0.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LIMI vs. LITP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIMI Sharpe Ratio is 3.71, which is comparable to the LITP Sharpe Ratio of 3.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIMI and LITP, 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

	LIMI	LITP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.71	3.78	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.50	-0.07	+1.57

Drawdowns

LIMI vs. LITP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIMI drawdown since its inception was -43.77%, smaller than the maximum LITP drawdown of -74.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIMI and LITP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIMI	LITP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.77%	-74.72%	+30.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.00%	-31.12%	+8.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-74.31%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.69%	-14.47%	+2.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.02%	-42.29%	+29.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.48%	10.23%	-2.75%

Volatility

LIMI vs. LITP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF (LIMI) is 9.74%, while Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) has a volatility of 13.36%. This indicates that LIMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LITP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIMI	LITP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.74%	13.36%	-3.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.23%	39.69%	-10.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.66%	58.34%	-14.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	41.41%	47.34%	-5.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	41.41%	47.34%	-5.93%

LIMI vs. LITP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LIMI has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than LITP's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

LIMI vs. LITP - Dividend Comparison

LIMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.45%, less than LITP's 5.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LIMI Themes Lithium & Battery Metal Miners ETF	0.45%	0.54%	8.14%	0.00%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	5.74%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LIMI and LITP in my portfolio?

LIMI and LITP have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LIMI or LITP?

LITP has higher volatility (13.36%) compared to LIMI (9.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIMI dropped -43.77% vs LITP's -74.72%.

Which ETF is better, LIMI or LITP?

On 1-year performance, LITP leads with 218.79% vs 160.78% for LIMI. On fees, LIMI is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, LIMI has been the lower-risk option at 9.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIMI or LITP?

Over the 1-year period, LITP has performed better with a 218.79% return vs 160.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIMI or LITP?

LIMI is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LITP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LIMI or LITP?

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 5.74%, compared with 0.45% for LIMI.

What is the main difference between LIMI and LITP?

LIMI is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while LITP is Energy Equities. LIMI tracks BITA Global Lithium and Battery Metals Select Index, while LITP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for LIMI and 0.65% for LITP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.78 vs 3.71), 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.