NBET vs. ION

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NBET (Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NBET is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman, while ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. NBET is actively managed, while ION is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, NBET returned 19.86%/yr vs 15.06%/yr for ION. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NBET charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

NBET vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBET achieves a 20.80% return, which is significantly higher than ION's 3.17% return.

NBET

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -5.87%
• YTD: 20.80%
• 6M: 20.90%
• 1Y: 23.09%
• 3Y*: 19.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ION

• 1D: -4.93%
• 1M: -11.41%
• YTD: 3.17%
• 6M: 1.52%
• 1Y: 96.49%
• 3Y*: 15.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NBET vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	20.80%	5.87%	30.30%	7.48%	-5.65%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	3.17%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between NBET and ION is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.32

The correlation between NBET and ION shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.32 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NBET vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NBET	ION
Energy	88.7%	2.5%
Utilities	9.0%	-
Industrials	2.3%	1.7%
Basic Materials	0.9%	14.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	13.3%
Healthcare	-	1.9%
Real Estate	-	2.3%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

NBET vs. ION — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBET

NBET Risk / Return Rank: 51
NBET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
NBET Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
NBET Omega Ratio Rank: 44
NBET Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
NBET Martin Ratio Rank: 50

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 73
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 63
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

NBET vs. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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.

	NBET	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	2.45	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.15	2.80	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.36	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	4.16	-1.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.90	12.42	-4.53

NBET vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBET Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is lower than the ION Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBET and ION, 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

NBET vs. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBET drawdown since its inception was -18.72%, smaller than the maximum ION drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBET and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBET	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.72%	-52.08%	+33.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.00%	-23.30%	+15.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.72%	-46.47%	+27.75%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.98%	-22.18%	+15.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.07%	-23.59%	+18.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	7.79%	-4.86%

Volatility

NBET vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) is 4.77%, while Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a volatility of 13.98%. This indicates that NBET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ION based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBET	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.77%	13.98%	-9.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.00%	32.19%	-21.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.66%	39.68%	-25.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.48%	31.59%	-12.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.48%	31.59%	-12.11%

NBET vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBET has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ION's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBET vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

NBET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, more than ION's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.55%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	1.71%	2.70%	2.43%	1.22%	0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBET and ION in my portfolio?

NBET and ION have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBET or ION?

ION has higher volatility (13.98%) compared to NBET (4.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBET dropped -18.72% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, NBET or ION?

On 3-year performance, NBET leads with 19.86% vs 15.06% for ION. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, NBET has been the lower-risk option at 4.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBET or ION?

Over the 3-year period, NBET has performed better with a 19.86% return vs 15.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBET or ION?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for NBET.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBET or ION?

NBET has the higher dividend yield at 1.71%, compared with 1.55% for ION.

What is the main difference between NBET and ION?

NBET is categorized as Energy Equities, while ION is Lithium & Battery Metals. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NBET and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 vs 1.59), 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.