LIT vs. URA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LIT returned 12.66%/yr vs 14.85%/yr for URA. Their 0.52 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

LIT vs. URA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LIT achieves a 7.18% return, which is significantly higher than URA's -8.57% return. Over the past 10 years, LIT has underperformed URA with an annualized return of 12.66%, while URA has yielded a comparatively higher 14.85% annualized return.

LIT

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: -9.55%
• 6M: -0.62%
• YTD: 7.18%
• 1Y: 70.85%
• 3Y*: 2.87%
• 5Y*: -2.82%
• 10Y*: 12.66%
• ALL TIME*: 6.36%

URA

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: -9.62%
• 6M: -28.95%
• YTD: -8.57%
• 1Y: 7.10%
• 3Y*: 25.57%
• 5Y*: 18.90%
• 10Y*: 14.85%
• ALL TIME*: -3.36%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	$15.35M	$16.35M	$33.70M
URA Global X Uranium ETF	$122.45M	$118.35M	$170.14M

LIT vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	7.18%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	3.27%	-28.63%	64.19%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	-8.57%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	57.57%	41.33%	-3.54%	-22.11%	19.36%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and URA is 0.56, 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.	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.49
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010	0.52

The correlation between LIT and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (3 years) to 0.56 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LIT vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LIT	URA
Basic Materials	47.9%	4.9%
Industrials	22.9%	21.4%
Technology	20.0%	0.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	58.7%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	7.1%

Return for Risk

LIT vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 78
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 79
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 69

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 14
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 16
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 12

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LIT vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). 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	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	0.08	+1.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.61	0.49	+2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.06	+0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	0.10	+2.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.37	0.22	+8.15

LIT vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and URA, 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. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-93.54%	+27.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.84%	-39.30%	+12.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-49.44%	-39.30%	-10.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.91%	-39.30%	-26.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.91%	-61.45%	-4.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.06%	-55.66%	+30.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.48%	-74.75%	+41.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.40%	18.11%	-9.71%

Volatility

LIT vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 9.34%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 13.54%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.34%	13.54%	-4.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.15%	38.35%	-13.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.47%	52.24%	-17.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.93%	44.10%	-12.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.80%	38.10%	-7.30%

LIT vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

LIT vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than URA's 5.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.73%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	5.33%	4.88%	2.86%	6.07%	0.76%	5.84%	1.69%	1.66%	0.44%	2.03%	7.28%	1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LIT and URA in my portfolio?

LIT and URA 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 URA?

URA has higher volatility (13.54%) compared to LIT (9.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, LIT or URA?

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 14.85% vs 12.66% for LIT. On fees, URA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 9.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIT or URA?

Over the 10-year period, URA has performed better with a 14.85% return vs 12.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIT or URA?

URA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 5.33%, compared with 0.73% for LIT.

What is the main difference between LIT and URA?

LIT is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while URA is Uranium. LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.08), 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.