LIT vs. ARKF

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and ARKF (ARK Fintech Innovation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIT is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while ARKF is a Blockchain fund actively managed by ARK. LIT is passively managed, while ARKF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LIT returned 4.01%/yr vs -5.06%/yr for ARKF. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

LIT vs. ARKF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 27.00% return, which is significantly higher than ARKF's -18.31% return.

LIT

• 1D: 2.02%
• 1M: -5.27%
• YTD: 27.00%
• 6M: 29.31%
• 1Y: 124.44%
• 3Y*: 9.00%
• 5Y*: 4.01%
• 10Y*: 14.53%

ARKF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -7.34%
• YTD: -18.31%
• 6M: -21.31%
• 1Y: -11.63%
• 3Y*: 23.97%
• 5Y*: -5.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

LIT vs. ARKF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	27.00%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	-3.42%
ARKF ARK Fintech Innovation ETF	-18.31%	28.67%	34.34%	93.27%	-65.07%	-17.82%	108.03%	20.45%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and ARKF is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2019	0.54

The correlation between LIT and ARKF shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.54 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LIT vs. ARKF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LIT	ARKF
Basic Materials	55.4%	-
Industrials	26.0%	-
Technology	11.5%	42.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.0%	16.4%
Communication Services	-	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	28.5%
Healthcare	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LIT vs. ARKF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 94
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 91
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

ARKF

ARKF Risk / Return Rank: 7
ARKF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
ARKF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
ARKF Omega Ratio Rank: 7
ARKF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
ARKF Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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. ARKF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF). 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	ARKF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.57	-0.35	+3.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	-0.28	+4.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	0.97	+0.55
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.36	-0.31	+7.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	27.27	-0.57	+27.83

LIT vs. ARKF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 3.57, which is higher than the ARKF Sharpe Ratio of -0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and ARKF, 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. ARKF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, smaller than the maximum ARKF drawdown of -78.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and ARKF.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	ARKF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-78.63%	+12.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-38.50%	+22.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.01%	-38.50%	-14.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.91%	-75.30%	+9.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.21%	-38.77%	+27.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.59%	-34.95%	+1.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.45%	21.00%	-16.55%

Volatility

LIT vs. ARKF - Volatility Comparison

Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a higher volatility of 11.56% compared to ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF) at 10.36%. This indicates that LIT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ARKF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	ARKF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.56%	10.36%	+1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.80%	25.14%	-1.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.94%	33.69%	+0.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.04%	42.87%	-10.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.77%	39.77%	-9.00%

LIT vs. ARKF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LIT and ARKF have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

LIT vs. ARKF - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, more than ARKF's 0.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ARKF ARK Fintech Innovation ETF	0.11%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.37%	1.25%	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 LIT and ARKF in my portfolio?

LIT and ARKF have a correlation of 0.37, 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 ARKF?

LIT has higher volatility (11.56%) compared to ARKF (10.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs ARKF's -78.63%.

Which ETF is better, LIT or ARKF?

On 5-year performance, LIT leads with 4.01% vs -5.06% for ARKF. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, ARKF has been the lower-risk option at 10.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIT or ARKF?

Over the 5-year period, LIT has performed better with a 4.01% return vs -5.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIT or ARKF?

LIT and ARKF have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

LIT has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.11% for ARKF.

What is the main difference between LIT and ARKF?

LIT is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while ARKF is Blockchain. They also come from different issuers: Global X and ARK.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.57 vs -0.35), 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.