LIT vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. LIT is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, LIT returned 125.46% vs 69.09% for CCNR. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

LIT vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LIT having a 28.40% return and CCNR slightly lower at 27.07%.

LIT

• 1D: -1.86%
• 1M: -5.85%
• YTD: 28.40%
• 6M: 34.19%
• 1Y: 125.46%
• 3Y*: 10.73%
• 5Y*: 4.59%
• 10Y*: 14.38%

CCNR

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.24%
• YTD: 27.07%
• 6M: 29.27%
• 1Y: 69.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LIT vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	28.40%	60.05%	0.11%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	27.07%	46.48%	-8.12%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and CCNR is 0.56, 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	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2024	0.60

The correlation between LIT and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

LIT vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LIT	CCNR
Basic Materials	55.4%	31.6%
Industrials	26.0%	7.5%
Technology	11.5%	4.3%
Consumer Cyclical	7.0%	1.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	8.5%
Energy	-	38.0%
Financial Services	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.5%
Utilities	-	8.5%

Return for Risk

LIT vs. CCNR — 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: 95
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 89
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 95
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). 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.

	LIT	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.86	3.92	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.23	4.75	-0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.65	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.62	10.73	-1.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	32.28	34.92	-2.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LIT vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 3.86, which is comparable to the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and CCNR, 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

	LIT	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.86	3.92	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.14	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	1.66	-1.39

Drawdowns

LIT vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-20.06%	-45.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.11%	-6.47%	-6.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.01%	—	—
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	-10.23%	-1.21%	-9.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.63%	-3.56%	-30.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.90%	1.98%	+1.92%

Volatility

LIT vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a higher volatility of 8.66% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 4.18%. This indicates that LIT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.66%	4.18%	+4.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.09%	12.76%	+9.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.75%	17.72%	+15.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.81%	19.83%	+11.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.66%	19.83%	+10.83%

LIT vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

LIT vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than CCNR's 2.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.74%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	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 LIT and CCNR in my portfolio?

LIT and CCNR have a correlation of 0.56, 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 CCNR?

LIT has higher volatility (8.66%) compared to CCNR (4.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, LIT or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, LIT leads with 125.46% vs 69.09% for CCNR. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIT or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, LIT has performed better with a 125.46% return vs 69.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIT or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.74%, compared with 0.38% for LIT.

What is the main difference between LIT and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.92 vs 3.86), 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.