LIT vs. PALL
LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIT is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while PALL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LIT returned 14.38%/yr vs 8.33%/yr for PALL. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PALL.
Performance
LIT vs. PALL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 28.40% return, which is significantly higher than PALL's -17.90% return. Over the past 10 years, LIT has outperformed PALL with an annualized return of 14.38%, while PALL has yielded a comparatively lower 8.33% annualized return.
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%
PALL
- 1D
- 0.59%
- 1M
- -11.77%
- YTD
- -17.90%
- 6M
- -9.77%
- 1Y
- 30.21%
- 3Y*
- -2.90%
- 5Y*
- -14.79%
- 10Y*
- 8.33%
LIT vs. PALL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | 28.40% | 60.05% | -19.19% | -12.18% | -29.91% | 36.74% | 127.88% | 3.27% | -28.63% | 64.19% |
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF | -17.90% | 74.07% | -17.38% | -38.77% | -6.28% | -23.26% | 25.27% | 53.94% | 17.23% | 55.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between LIT and PALL is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2010 | 0.33 |
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. PALL — Risk / Return Rank
LIT
PALL
LIT vs. PALL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL). 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 | PALL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.56 | 1.15 | +0.41 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 9.62 | 0.84 | +8.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 32.28 | 1.85 | +30.44 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LIT | PALL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.86 | 0.60 | +3.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.14 | -0.35 | +0.49 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.47 | 0.22 | +0.25 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.26 | 0.18 | +0.09 |
Drawdowns
LIT vs. PALL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, smaller than the maximum PALL drawdown of -73.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and PALL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LIT | PALL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.91% | -73.63% | +7.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.11% | -36.18% | +23.07% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -53.01% | -40.47% | -12.54% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.91% | -73.63% | +7.72% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -65.91% | -73.63% | +7.72% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.23% | -59.54% | +49.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -33.63% | -26.82% | -6.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.90% | 16.41% | -12.51% |
Volatility
LIT vs. PALL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 8.66%, while Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) has a volatility of 10.54%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PALL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LIT | PALL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.66% | 10.54% | -1.88% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.09% | 41.76% | -19.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 32.75% | 50.20% | -17.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.81% | 42.47% | -10.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.66% | 37.90% | -7.24% |
LIT vs. PALL - Expense Ratio Comparison
LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than PALL's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
LIT vs. PALL - Dividend Comparison
LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, while PALL has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LIT and PALL have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PALL has higher volatility (10.54%) compared to LIT (8.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs PALL's -73.63%.
On 10-year performance, LIT leads with 14.38% vs 8.33% for PALL. On fees, PALL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 8.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, LIT has performed better with a 14.38% return vs 8.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PALL is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.
LIT has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.00% for PALL.
LIT is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while PALL is Precious Metals. LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index, while PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: Global X and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.60% for PALL.
LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 0.60), 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 PALL
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