LIT vs. MOTO
LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and MOTO (SmartETFs Smart Transportation & Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while MOTO is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Guinness Atkinson. LIT is passively managed, while MOTO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LIT returned -3.28%/yr vs 7.58%/yr for MOTO. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for MOTO.
Performance
LIT vs. MOTO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 7.47% return, which is significantly lower than MOTO's 17.24% return.
LIT
- 1D
- 0.27%
- 1M
- -9.30%
- 6M
- -0.59%
- YTD
- 7.47%
- 1Y
- 71.32%
- 3Y*
- 3.89%
- 5Y*
- -3.28%
- 10Y*
- 12.31%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.37%
MOTO
- 1D
- 1.41%
- 1M
- -0.75%
- 6M
- 9.06%
- YTD
- 17.24%
- 1Y
- 34.06%
- 3Y*
- 14.56%
- 5Y*
- 7.58%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 16.32%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $15.25M | $15.72M | $33.64M | |
| $14.22K | $15.41K | $15.45K |
LIT vs. MOTO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 7.47% | 60.05% | -19.19% | -12.18% | -29.91% | 36.74% | 127.88% | 8.88% |
MOTO SmartETFs Smart Transportation & Technology ETF | 17.24% | 27.38% | 2.01% | 27.10% | -27.20% | 17.22% | 59.13% | 5.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between LIT and MOTO is 0.61, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.61 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.64 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.67 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2019 | 0.68 |
The correlation between LIT and MOTO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.
LIT vs. MOTO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LIT
MOTO
Basic Materials
Industrials
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
LIT
MOTO
Industrials
LIT
MOTO
Technology
LIT
MOTO
Consumer Cyclical
LIT
MOTO
Communication Services
LIT
-
MOTO
Consumer Defensive
LIT
-
MOTO
Energy
LIT
-
MOTO
-
Financial Services
LIT
-
MOTO
Healthcare
LIT
-
MOTO
-
Real Estate
LIT
-
MOTO
-
Utilities
LIT
-
MOTO
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LIT vs. MOTO — Risk / Return Rank
LIT
MOTO
LIT vs. MOTO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and SmartETFs Smart Transportation & Technology ETF (MOTO). 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 | MOTO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.25 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.67 | 2.13 | +0.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.38 | 6.46 | +1.93 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LIT vs. MOTO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, which is greater than MOTO's maximum drawdown of -38.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and MOTO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LIT | MOTO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.91% | -38.24% | -27.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.84% | -16.07% | -10.77% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -49.14% | -26.43% | -22.71% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.91% | -37.34% | -28.57% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -65.91% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.86% | -10.85% | -14.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -33.48% | -9.94% | -23.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.53% | 5.29% | +3.24% |
Volatility
LIT vs. MOTO - Volatility Comparison
Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a higher volatility of 9.27% compared to SmartETFs Smart Transportation & Technology ETF (MOTO) at 8.50%. This indicates that LIT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MOTO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LIT | MOTO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.27% | 8.50% | +0.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.63% | 20.79% | +3.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 34.43% | 24.52% | +9.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.93% | 24.25% | +7.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.80% | 26.51% | +4.29% |
LIT vs. MOTO - Expense Ratio Comparison
LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than MOTO's 0.68% expense ratio.
Dividends
LIT vs. MOTO - Dividend Comparison
LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, less than MOTO's 0.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 0.72% | 0.49% | 0.93% | 1.11% | 0.99% | 0.22% | 0.40% | 1.85% | 2.52% | 3.26% | 2.15% | 0.24% |
MOTO SmartETFs Smart Transportation & Technology ETF | 0.90% | 1.06% | 1.07% | 2.73% | 2.33% | 0.55% | 2.71% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LIT and MOTO have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LIT has higher volatility (9.27%) compared to MOTO (8.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs MOTO's -38.24%.
On 5-year performance, MOTO leads with 7.58% vs -3.28% for LIT. On fees, MOTO is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, MOTO has been the lower-risk option at 8.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, MOTO has performed better with a 7.58% return vs -3.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MOTO is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.
MOTO has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.72% for LIT.
LIT is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while MOTO is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Guinness Atkinson. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.68% for MOTO.
LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.40), 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.
Find the right allocation for LIT and MOTO
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer