LITP vs. ZSB

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds - LITP tracks the Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross while ZSB tracks the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LITP returned -5.07%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LITP charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.

Performance

LITP vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) 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, LITP achieves a 17.76% return, which is significantly higher than ZSB's 7.92% return.

LITP

• 1D: -3.13%
• 1M: -9.39%
• YTD: 17.76%
• 6M: 21.49%
• 1Y: 189.44%
• 3Y*: -5.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZSB

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: -4.74%
• YTD: 7.92%
• 6M: 14.69%
• 1Y: 70.20%
• 3Y*: 2.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LITP vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	17.76%	94.65%	-43.85%	-36.71%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	7.92%	64.34%	-19.70%	-35.35%

Correlation

The correlation between LITP and ZSB is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.42

Return for Risk

LITP vs. ZSB — Risk / Return Rank

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

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 82
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 68
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
LITP Martin Ratio Rank: 83

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 74
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 81
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ZSB 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. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	LITP	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.98	2.50	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	2.94	+0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.46	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.75	3.97	+1.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.03	10.71	+5.32

LITP vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LITP Sharpe Ratio is 2.98, which is comparable to the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LITP 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

LITP vs. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LITP drawdown since its inception was -74.94%, which is greater than ZSB's maximum drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LITP and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	LITP	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.94%	-49.26%	-25.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.13%	-16.75%	-14.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-74.31%	-43.22%	-31.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.90%	-9.01%	-12.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.45%	-30.63%	-11.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.15%	6.19%	+4.96%

Volatility

LITP vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) has a higher volatility of 17.25% compared to USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) at 5.27%. This indicates that LITP'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

	LITP	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.25%	5.27%	+11.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.08%	22.25%	+19.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	60.13%	26.60%	+33.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	47.77%	19.57%	+28.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	47.77%	19.57%	+28.20%

LITP vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

LITP has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

LITP vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

LITP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.29%, more than ZSB's 0.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	6.29%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.85%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LITP and ZSB in my portfolio?

LITP and ZSB have a correlation of 0.44, 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 ZSB?

LITP has higher volatility (17.25%) compared to ZSB (5.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LITP dropped -74.94% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, LITP or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, ZSB leads with 2.07% vs -5.07% for LITP. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 5.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LITP or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, ZSB has performed better with a 2.07% return vs -5.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LITP or ZSB?

ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LITP.

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

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 6.29%, compared with 0.85% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between LITP and ZSB?

LITP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. They also come from different issuers: Sprott and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LITP and 0.59% for ZSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.98 vs 2.50), 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.