LITP vs. SETM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) and SETM (Sprott Critical Materials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LITP is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while SETM is a Materials fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LITP returned -4.35%/yr vs 26.89%/yr for SETM. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

LITP vs. SETM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LITP achieves a 13.44% return, which is significantly lower than SETM's 15.89% return.

LITP

• 1D: -3.66%
• 1M: -12.71%
• YTD: 13.44%
• 6M: 10.62%
• 1Y: 178.84%
• 3Y*: -4.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SETM

• 1D: -1.73%
• 1M: -4.22%
• YTD: 15.89%
• 6M: 15.21%
• 1Y: 105.69%
• 3Y*: 26.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LITP vs. SETM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	13.44%	94.65%	-43.85%	-36.71%
SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF	15.89%	95.27%	-13.24%	-13.11%

Correlation

The correlation between LITP and SETM is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.77

The correlation between LITP and SETM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

LITP vs. SETM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LITP	SETM
Basic Materials	100.0%	76.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	0.1%
Energy	-	22.9%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	1.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LITP vs. SETM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 81
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 67
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
LITP Martin Ratio Rank: 82

SETM

SETM Risk / Return Rank: 67
SETM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
SETM Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
SETM Omega Ratio Rank: 58
SETM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
SETM Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. SETM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) and Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM). 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.

	LITP	SETM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.99	2.29	+0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.18	2.59	+0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.35	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.78	4.11	+1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.96	11.83	+4.13

LITP vs. SETM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LITP Sharpe Ratio is 2.99, which is higher than the SETM Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LITP and SETM, 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

LITP vs. SETM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LITP drawdown since its inception was -74.94%, which is greater than SETM's maximum drawdown of -42.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LITP and SETM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LITP	SETM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.94%	-42.81%	-32.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.12%	-25.85%	-5.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-74.31%	-42.81%	-31.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.77%	-15.55%	-9.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.43%	-15.02%	-27.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.25%	8.96%	+2.29%

Volatility

LITP vs. SETM - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) and Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) have volatilities of 17.37% and 16.80%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LITP	SETM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.37%	16.80%	+0.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.09%	37.30%	+4.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	60.22%	46.57%	+13.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	47.79%	37.18%	+10.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	47.79%	37.18%	+10.61%

LITP vs. SETM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LITP vs. SETM - Dividend Comparison

LITP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.53%, more than SETM's 1.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	6.53%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%
SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF	1.35%	1.56%	2.07%	2.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LITP and SETM in my portfolio?

LITP and SETM have a correlation of 0.77, 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 SETM?

LITP has higher volatility (17.37%) compared to SETM (16.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LITP dropped -74.94% vs SETM's -42.81%.

Which ETF is better, LITP or SETM?

On 3-year performance, SETM leads with 26.89% vs -4.35% for LITP. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. On volatility, SETM has been the lower-risk option at 16.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LITP or SETM?

Over the 3-year period, SETM has performed better with a 26.89% return vs -4.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LITP or SETM?

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

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

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 6.53%, compared with 1.35% for SETM.

What is the main difference between LITP and SETM?

LITP is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while SETM is Materials. LITP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while SETM tracks Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 2.29), 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.