LIT vs. YOLO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and YOLO (AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LIT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index, while YOLO is a Cannabis fund actively managed by AdvisorShares. LIT is passively managed, while YOLO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LIT returned 3.06%/yr vs -32.93%/yr for YOLO. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

LIT vs. YOLO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (YOLO). 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 YOLO's -19.39% 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%

YOLO

• 1D: -5.00%
• 1M: -8.90%
• YTD: -19.39%
• 6M: -20.12%
• 1Y: 51.14%
• 3Y*: 2.29%
• 5Y*: -32.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

LIT vs. YOLO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	20.92%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	-5.23%
YOLO AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF	-19.39%	36.36%	-17.81%	-15.10%	-72.21%	-20.48%	47.17%	-51.27%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and YOLO is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2019	0.41

The correlation between LIT and YOLO shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.41 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LIT vs. YOLO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LIT	YOLO
Basic Materials	49.9%	-
Industrials	25.0%	-
Technology	16.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	0.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	10.2%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	43.1%
Healthcare	-	29.7%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LIT vs. YOLO — 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

YOLO

YOLO Risk / Return Rank: 26
YOLO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
YOLO Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
YOLO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
YOLO Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
YOLO Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. YOLO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (YOLO). 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	YOLO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.35	0.69	+2.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.73	1.64	+2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.19	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.98	1.25	+5.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.36	2.25	+22.11

LIT vs. YOLO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 3.35, which is higher than the YOLO Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and YOLO, 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. YOLO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, smaller than the maximum YOLO drawdown of -94.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and YOLO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	YOLO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-94.68%	+28.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-41.09%	+24.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.01%	-66.45%	+13.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.91%	-92.37%	+26.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.46%	-90.57%	+75.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.56%	-69.06%	+35.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	22.81%	-18.10%

Volatility

LIT vs. YOLO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) is 11.76%, while AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (YOLO) has a volatility of 13.47%. This indicates that LIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than YOLO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	YOLO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.76%	13.47%	-1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.39%	38.34%	-13.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.30%	75.07%	-40.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.09%	53.79%	-21.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.75%	51.30%	-20.55%

LIT vs. YOLO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LIT and YOLO have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

LIT vs. YOLO - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, while YOLO 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	0.40%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%
YOLO AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF	0.00%	0.00%	3.57%	1.17%	0.55%	3.93%	2.03%	4.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LIT and YOLO in my portfolio?

LIT and YOLO have a correlation of 0.29, 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 YOLO?

YOLO has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to LIT (11.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs YOLO's -94.68%.

Which ETF is better, LIT or YOLO?

On 5-year performance, LIT leads with 3.06% vs -32.93% for YOLO. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. 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 YOLO?

Over the 5-year period, LIT has performed better with a 3.06% return vs -32.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIT or YOLO?

LIT and YOLO have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

LIT has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.00% for YOLO.

What is the main difference between LIT and YOLO?

LIT is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while YOLO is Cannabis. They also come from different issuers: Global X and AdvisorShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.35 vs 0.69), 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.