PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LITU.L vs. COPG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Lithium & Battery Tech UCITS ETF USD Acc (LITU.L) and Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

LITU.L is traded in USD, while COPG.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the COPG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LITU.L achieves a 26.60% return, which is significantly higher than COPG.L's 24.61% return.


LITU.L

1D
-3.04%
1M
-6.81%
YTD
26.60%
6M
33.72%
1Y
122.91%
3Y*
10.21%
5Y*
10Y*

COPG.L

1D
-0.90%
1M
14.84%
YTD
24.61%
6M
36.76%
1Y
117.72%
3Y*
37.98%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
LITU.L
Global X Lithium & Battery Tech UCITS ETF USD Acc
26.60%59.30%-20.01%-10.77%-29.93%-5.78%
COPG.L
Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc
24.61%95.78%1.93%8.46%3.56%-1.35%

Correlation

The correlation between LITU.L and COPG.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2021

0.61

The correlation between LITU.L and COPG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LITU.L vs. COPG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

LITU.L
LITU.L Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
LITU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LITU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
LITU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
LITU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
LITU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
Martin Ratio Rank

COPG.L
COPG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
COPG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
COPG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
COPG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
COPG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
COPG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech UCITS ETF USD Acc (LITU.L) and Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L). 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.


LITU.LCOPG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.86

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.56

1.41

+0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

9.96

4.26

+5.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

29.16

13.33

+15.83

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LITU.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.93, which is higher than the COPG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LITU.L and COPG.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LITU.LCOPG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.93

2.92

+1.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.02

0.70

-0.72

Drawdowns

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LITU.L drawdown since its inception was -62.97%, which is greater than COPG.L's maximum drawdown of -42.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LITU.L and COPG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LITU.LCOPG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.97%

-42.19%

-20.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.27%

-27.48%

+15.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-51.91%

-38.32%

-13.59%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.67%

-6.58%

-3.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-35.32%

-15.69%

-19.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.20%

8.80%

-4.60%

Volatility

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Lithium & Battery Tech UCITS ETF USD Acc (LITU.L) is 10.16%, while Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L) has a volatility of 14.91%. This indicates that LITU.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COPG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LITU.LCOPG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.16%

14.91%

-4.75%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.68%

34.13%

-12.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.18%

40.07%

-8.89%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.43%

37.46%

-7.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.43%

37.46%

-7.03%

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

LITU.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than COPG.L's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

LITU.L vs. COPG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither LITU.L nor COPG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


LITU.L and COPG.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, LITU.L is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LITU.L is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for COPG.L.

LITU.L tracks Solactive Global Lithium v2 Index, while COPG.L tracks Solactive Global Copper Miners Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for LITU.L and 0.65% for COPG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LITU.L and COPG.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer