LIT vs. EMET
Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET).
LIT and EMET are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LIT is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the Solactive Global Lithium Index. It was launched on Jul 22, 2010. EMET is a passively managed fund by VanEck that tracks the performance of the MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index. It was launched on Nov 9, 2021. Both LIT and EMET are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
LIT vs. EMET - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
LIT vs. EMET - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 14.63% | 60.05% | -19.19% | -12.18% | -29.91% | -11.76% |
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF | 8.57% | 81.22% | -12.81% | -12.28% | -17.15% | -0.14% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 14.63% return, which is significantly higher than EMET's 8.57% return.
LIT
- 1D
- 2.54%
- 1M
- -1.39%
- YTD
- 14.63%
- 6M
- 31.14%
- 1Y
- 92.83%
- 3Y*
- 6.29%
- 5Y*
- 5.25%
- 10Y*
- 14.87%
EMET
- 1D
- 5.66%
- 1M
- -17.71%
- YTD
- 8.57%
- 6M
- 29.28%
- 1Y
- 96.14%
- 3Y*
- 14.53%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LIT vs. EMET - Expense Ratio Comparison
LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EMET's 0.61% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
LIT vs. EMET — Risk / Return Rank
LIT
EMET
LIT vs. EMET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET). 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 | EMET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.70 | 2.55 | +0.15 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.28 | 2.93 | +0.35 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.44 | 1.42 | +0.01 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.00 | 3.62 | +1.38 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.45 | 14.01 | +5.44 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LIT | EMET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.70 | 2.55 | +0.15 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.17 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.49 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.24 | 0.16 | +0.08 |
Correlation
The correlation between LIT and EMET is 0.78, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
LIT vs. EMET - Dividend Comparison
LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than EMET's 1.70% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 0.42% | 0.49% | 0.93% | 1.11% | 0.99% | 0.22% | 0.40% | 1.85% | 2.52% | 3.26% | 2.15% | 0.24% |
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF | 1.70% | 1.84% | 1.89% | 2.02% | 2.56% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
LIT vs. EMET - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, which is greater than EMET's maximum drawdown of -53.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and EMET.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| LIT | EMET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.91% | -53.05% | -12.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.61% | -25.58% | +7.97% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.91% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -65.91% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.86% | -17.71% | -2.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -33.90% | -25.45% | -8.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.63% | 6.62% | -1.99% |
Volatility
LIT vs. EMET - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 11.99%, while VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a volatility of 15.40%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| LIT | EMET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.99% | 15.40% | -3.41% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.73% | 29.80% | -5.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 34.57% | 37.91% | -3.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.68% | 32.68% | -1.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.50% | 32.68% | -2.18% |