NRES vs. LIT

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NRES (Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. NRES is actively managed, while LIT is passively managed. Over the past year, NRES returned 39.69% vs 125.46% for LIT. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NRES charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

NRES vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF (NRES) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NRES achieves a 17.26% return, which is significantly lower than LIT's 28.40% return.

NRES

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -1.74%
• YTD: 17.26%
• 6M: 19.19%
• 1Y: 39.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LIT

• 1D: -1.86%
• 1M: -5.85%
• YTD: 28.40%
• 6M: 34.19%
• 1Y: 125.46%
• 3Y*: 10.73%
• 5Y*: 4.59%
• 10Y*: 14.38%

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

NRES vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NRES Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF	17.26%	27.08%	-2.78%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	28.40%	60.05%	-6.98%

Correlation

The correlation between NRES and LIT is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2024	0.55

The correlation between NRES and LIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

NRES vs. LIT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRES	LIT
Basic Materials	44.2%	55.4%
Energy	39.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	5.7%	-
Real Estate	1.1%	-
Healthcare	0.9%	-
Industrials	0.8%	26.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Technology	-	11.5%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NRES vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRES

NRES Risk / Return Rank: 77
NRES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
NRES Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
NRES Omega Ratio Rank: 70
NRES Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
NRES Martin Ratio Rank: 85

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 93
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 89
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

NRES vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF (NRES) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). 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.

	NRES	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	3.86	-1.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	4.23	-1.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.56	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.71	9.62	-4.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.95	32.28	-15.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NRES vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRES Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is lower than the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 3.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRES and LIT, 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

	NRES	LIT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.39	3.86	-1.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.47	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.99	0.26	+0.73

Drawdowns

NRES vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRES drawdown since its inception was -22.22%, smaller than the maximum LIT drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRES and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRES	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.22%	-65.91%	+43.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.47%	-13.11%	+4.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-53.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-65.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-65.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.65%	-10.23%	+6.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.21%	-33.63%	+28.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.35%	3.90%	-1.55%

Volatility

NRES vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF (NRES) is 4.57%, while Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a volatility of 8.66%. This indicates that NRES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRES	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.57%	8.66%	-4.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.17%	22.09%	-8.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.67%	32.75%	-16.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.99%	31.81%	-13.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.99%	30.66%	-12.67%

NRES vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRES has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRES vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

NRES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, more than LIT's 0.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.38%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%
NRES Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF	2.27%	2.65%	3.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRES and LIT in my portfolio?

NRES and LIT have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NRES or LIT?

LIT has higher volatility (8.66%) compared to NRES (4.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRES dropped -22.22% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, NRES or LIT?

On 1-year performance, LIT leads with 125.46% vs 39.69% for NRES. On fees, NRES is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, NRES has been the lower-risk option at 4.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRES or LIT?

Over the 1-year period, LIT has performed better with a 125.46% return vs 39.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRES or LIT?

NRES is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NRES or LIT?

NRES has the higher dividend yield at 2.27%, compared with 0.38% for LIT.

What is the main difference between NRES and LIT?

They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for NRES and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.86 vs 2.39), 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.