LITP vs. COPP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) and COPP (Sprott 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 COPP is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Copper Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, LITP returned 218.79% vs 111.49% for COPP. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

LITP vs. COPP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) and Sprott Copper Miners ETF (COPP). 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 COPP's 26.69% return.

LITP

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

COPP

• 1D: -3.50%
• 1M: 22.98%
• YTD: 26.69%
• 6M: 39.51%
• 1Y: 111.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LITP vs. COPP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	28.96%	94.65%	-29.78%
COPP Sprott Copper Miners ETF	26.69%	74.02%	4.18%

Correlation

The correlation between LITP and COPP is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2024	0.57

The correlation between LITP and COPP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

LITP vs. COPP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LITP	COPP
Basic Materials	100.0%	92.0%
Communication Services	-	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.1%
Energy	-	0.1%
Financial Services	-	0.9%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	0.1%
Real Estate	-	0.0%
Technology	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

LITP vs. COPP — 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

COPP

COPP Risk / Return Rank: 70
COPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
COPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
COPP Omega Ratio Rank: 61
COPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
COPP Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. COPP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) and Sprott Copper Miners ETF (COPP). 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	COPP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.78	2.62	+1.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.67	2.98	+0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.38	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.08	3.88	+3.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.48	13.39	+8.09
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. COPP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LITP Sharpe Ratio is 3.78, which is higher than the COPP Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LITP and COPP, 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	COPP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.78	2.62	+1.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.07	1.11	-1.17

Drawdowns

LITP vs. COPP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LITP drawdown since its inception was -74.72%, which is greater than COPP's maximum drawdown of -44.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LITP and COPP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LITP	COPP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.72%	-44.37%	-30.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.12%	-28.91%	-2.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-74.31%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.47%	-3.50%	-10.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.29%	-14.02%	-28.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.23%	8.35%	+1.88%

Volatility

LITP vs. COPP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) is 13.36%, while Sprott Copper Miners ETF (COPP) has a volatility of 15.22%. This indicates that LITP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COPP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LITP	COPP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.36%	15.22%	-1.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.69%	36.30%	+3.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	58.34%	42.84%	+15.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	47.34%	40.80%	+6.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	47.34%	40.80%	+6.54%

LITP vs. COPP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LITP and COPP have an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Dividends

LITP vs. COPP - Dividend Comparison

LITP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.74%, more than COPP's 1.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
COPP Sprott Copper Miners ETF	1.87%	2.37%	2.59%	0.00%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	5.74%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LITP and COPP in my portfolio?

LITP and COPP have a correlation of 0.52, 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 COPP?

COPP has higher volatility (15.22%) compared to LITP (13.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LITP dropped -74.72% vs COPP's -44.37%.

Which ETF is better, LITP or COPP?

On 1-year performance, LITP leads with 218.79% vs 111.49% for COPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. 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 COPP?

Over the 1-year period, LITP has performed better with a 218.79% return vs 111.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LITP or COPP?

LITP and COPP have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

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

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 5.74%, compared with 1.87% for COPP.

What is the main difference between LITP and COPP?

LITP is categorized as Energy Equities, while COPP is Commodity Producers Equities. LITP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while COPP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Copper Miners Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.78 vs 2.62), 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.