LIT vs. ALB

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) is Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while ALB (Albemarle Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, LIT returned 14.81%/yr vs 8.53%/yr for ALB. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

LIT vs. ALB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and Albemarle Corporation (ALB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 27.30% return, which is significantly higher than ALB's 11.34% return. Over the past 10 years, LIT has outperformed ALB with an annualized return of 14.81%, while ALB has yielded a comparatively lower 8.53% annualized return.

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%

ALB

• 1D: -2.28%
• 1M: -8.45%
• YTD: 11.34%
• 6M: 8.32%
• 1Y: 180.29%
• 3Y*: -9.34%
• 5Y*: 0.32%
• 10Y*: 8.53%

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

LIT vs. ALB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	27.30%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	3.27%	-28.63%	64.19%
ALB Albemarle Corporation	11.34%	67.72%	-39.50%	-32.80%	-6.63%	59.76%	105.39%	-3.28%	-38.89%	50.22%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and ALB is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2010	0.68

The correlation between LIT and ALB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LIT vs. ALB — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

ALB

ALB Risk / Return Rank: 92
ALB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
ALB Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
ALB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
ALB Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ALB Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

LIT vs. ALB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and Albemarle Corporation (ALB). 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.

	LIT	ALB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.84	2.91	+0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.14	3.06	+1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.38	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.90	5.72	+2.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.08	16.53	+11.55

LIT vs. ALB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 3.84, which is higher than the ALB Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and ALB, 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

LIT vs. ALB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, smaller than the maximum ALB drawdown of -83.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and ALB.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	ALB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-83.90%	+17.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-31.72%	+15.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.01%	-78.60%	+25.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.91%	-83.90%	+17.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.91%	-83.90%	+17.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.99%	-49.31%	+38.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.56%	-20.70%	-12.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.62%	10.96%	-6.34%

Volatility

LIT vs. ALB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 10.69%, while Albemarle Corporation (ALB) has a volatility of 15.41%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ALB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	ALB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.69%	15.41%	-4.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.79%	42.85%	-19.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.94%	62.56%	-28.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.03%	54.69%	-22.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.78%	48.39%	-17.61%

Dividends

LIT vs. ALB - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than ALB's 1.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ALB Albemarle Corporation	1.03%	1.15%	1.87%	1.11%	0.73%	0.67%	1.04%	2.01%	1.74%	1.00%	1.42%	2.07%
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 LIT and ALB in my portfolio?

LIT and ALB have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LIT or ALB?

ALB has higher volatility (15.41%) compared to LIT (10.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs ALB's -83.90%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs 2.91), 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.