LIT vs. ION

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds - LIT tracks the Solactive Global Lithium Index while ION tracks the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LIT returned 8.82%/yr vs 15.06%/yr for ION. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

LIT vs. ION - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 20.92% return, which is significantly higher than ION's 3.17% return.

LIT

• 1D: -5.01%
• 1M: -8.03%
• YTD: 20.92%
• 6M: 17.98%
• 1Y: 114.29%
• 3Y*: 8.82%
• 5Y*: 3.06%
• 10Y*: 14.22%

ION

• 1D: -4.93%
• 1M: -11.41%
• YTD: 3.17%
• 6M: 1.52%
• 1Y: 96.49%
• 3Y*: 15.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LIT vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	20.92%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-14.85%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	3.17%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and ION is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.86

The correlation between LIT and ION has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

LIT vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LIT	ION
Basic Materials	49.9%	14.1%
Industrials	25.0%	1.7%
Technology	16.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	2.5%
Financial Services	-	13.3%
Healthcare	-	1.9%
Real Estate	-	2.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LIT vs. ION — Risk / Return Rank

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

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 91
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 94

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 73
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 63
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.35	2.45	+0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.73	2.80	+0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.36	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.98	4.16	+2.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.36	12.42	+11.94

LIT vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 3.35, which is higher than the ION Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and ION, 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. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, which is greater than ION's maximum drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-52.08%	-13.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-23.30%	+6.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.01%	-46.47%	-6.54%
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	-15.46%	-22.18%	+6.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.56%	-23.59%	-9.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	7.79%	-3.08%

Volatility

LIT vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 11.76%, while Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a volatility of 13.98%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ION based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.76%	13.98%	-2.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.39%	32.19%	-7.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.30%	39.68%	-5.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.09%	31.59%	+0.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.75%	31.59%	-0.84%

LIT vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ION's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

LIT vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, less than ION's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.55%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.40%	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 ION in my portfolio?

LIT and ION have a correlation of 0.90, 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 ION?

ION has higher volatility (13.98%) compared to LIT (11.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, LIT or ION?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 15.06% vs 8.82% for LIT. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 11.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIT or ION?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 15.06% return vs 8.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIT or ION?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.40% for LIT.

What is the main difference between LIT and ION?

LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index, while ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. They also come from different issuers: Global X and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.35 vs 2.45), 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.