LITP vs. COPJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) and COPJ (Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LITP is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while COPJ is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Junior Copper Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LITP returned -0.12%/yr vs 45.39%/yr for COPJ. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LITP charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.78%/yr for COPJ.

Performance

LITP vs. COPJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) and Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LITP achieves a 28.96% return, which is significantly higher than COPJ's 15.22% return.

LITP

• 1D: -4.66%
• 1M: -7.17%
• YTD: 28.96%
• 6M: 41.58%
• 1Y: 218.79%
• 3Y*: -0.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COPJ

• 1D: -4.49%
• 1M: 13.66%
• YTD: 15.22%
• 6M: 30.03%
• 1Y: 123.62%
• 3Y*: 45.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LITP vs. COPJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	28.96%	94.65%	-43.85%	-36.14%
COPJ Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF	15.22%	140.63%	11.07%	-5.30%

Correlation

The correlation between LITP and COPJ is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2023	0.59

The correlation between LITP and COPJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

LITP vs. COPJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LITP	COPJ
Basic Materials	100.0%	100.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	3.6%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LITP vs. COPJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 87
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 74
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

COPJ

COPJ Risk / Return Rank: 73
COPJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
COPJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
COPJ Omega Ratio Rank: 72
COPJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
COPJ Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

LITP vs. COPJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) and Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ). 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.

	LITP	COPJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.78	2.95	+0.83
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.67	3.14	+0.53
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.44	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.08	3.85	+3.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	21.48	11.26	+10.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LITP vs. COPJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LITP Sharpe Ratio is 3.78, which is comparable to the COPJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LITP and COPJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LITP	COPJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.78	2.95	+0.83
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.07	1.10	-1.16

Drawdowns

LITP vs. COPJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LITP drawdown since its inception was -74.72%, which is greater than COPJ's maximum drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LITP and COPJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LITP	COPJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.72%	-32.28%	-42.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.12%	-32.28%	+1.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-74.31%	-32.28%	-42.03%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.47%	-11.93%	-2.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.29%	-11.86%	-30.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.23%	11.02%	-0.79%

Volatility

LITP vs. COPJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) is 13.36%, while Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ) has a volatility of 15.44%. This indicates that LITP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COPJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LITP	COPJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.36%	15.44%	-2.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.69%	35.19%	+4.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	58.34%	42.16%	+16.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	47.34%	34.78%	+12.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	47.34%	34.78%	+12.56%

LITP vs. COPJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

LITP has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than COPJ's 0.78% expense ratio.

Dividends

LITP vs. COPJ - Dividend Comparison

LITP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.74%, less than COPJ's 10.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
COPJ Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF	10.04%	11.57%	11.64%	2.48%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	5.74%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LITP and COPJ in my portfolio?

LITP and COPJ have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LITP or COPJ?

COPJ has higher volatility (15.44%) compared to LITP (13.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LITP dropped -74.72% vs COPJ's -32.28%.

Which ETF is better, LITP or COPJ?

On 3-year performance, COPJ leads with 45.39% vs -0.12% for LITP. On fees, LITP is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, LITP has been the lower-risk option at 13.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LITP or COPJ?

Over the 3-year period, COPJ has performed better with a 45.39% return vs -0.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LITP or COPJ?

LITP is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for COPJ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LITP or COPJ?

COPJ has the higher dividend yield at 10.04%, compared with 5.74% for LITP.

What is the main difference between LITP and COPJ?

LITP is categorized as Energy Equities, while COPJ is Commodity Producers Equities. LITP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while COPJ tracks Nasdaq Sprott Junior Copper Miners Index. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LITP and 0.78% for COPJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.78 vs 2.95), 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.