LIT vs. ZSB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds - LIT tracks the Solactive Global Lithium Index while ZSB tracks the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LIT returned 8.82%/yr vs 1.91%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LIT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.

Performance

LIT vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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 ZSB's 4.41% 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%

ZSB

• 1D: -2.97%
• 1M: -7.84%
• YTD: 4.41%
• 6M: 6.25%
• 1Y: 59.70%
• 3Y*: 1.91%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LIT vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	20.92%	60.05%	-19.19%	-16.89%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	4.41%	64.34%	-19.70%	-31.38%

Correlation

The correlation between LIT and ZSB is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.39

Return for Risk

LIT vs. ZSB — 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

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 71
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.35	2.26	+1.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.73	2.71	+1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.42	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.98	3.58	+3.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.36	9.56	+14.80

LIT vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIT Sharpe Ratio is 3.35, which is higher than the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIT and ZSB, 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. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIT drawdown since its inception was -65.91%, which is greater than ZSB's maximum drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIT and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIT	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.91%	-49.26%	-16.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-16.75%	+0.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.01%	-43.22%	-9.79%
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%	-11.97%	-3.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.56%	-30.58%	-2.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	6.27%	-1.56%

Volatility

LIT vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a higher volatility of 11.76% compared to USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) at 5.63%. This indicates that LIT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LIT	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.76%	5.63%	+6.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.39%	22.46%	+1.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.30%	26.67%	+7.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.09%	19.62%	+12.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.75%	19.62%	+11.13%

LIT vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

LIT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

LIT vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, less than ZSB's 0.88% yield.

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%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.88%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LIT and ZSB in my portfolio?

LIT and ZSB have a correlation of 0.45, 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 ZSB?

LIT has higher volatility (11.76%) compared to ZSB (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIT dropped -65.91% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, LIT or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, LIT leads with 8.82% vs 1.91% for ZSB. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LIT or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, LIT has performed better with a 8.82% return vs 1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LIT or ZSB?

ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

ZSB has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.40% for LIT.

What is the main difference between LIT and ZSB?

LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index, while ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LIT and 0.59% for ZSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.35 vs 2.26), 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.