PALL vs. LIT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PALL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while LIT is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PALL returned 8.36%/yr vs 14.81%/yr for LIT. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PALL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

PALL vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) 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, PALL achieves a -18.39% return, which is significantly lower than LIT's 30.84% return. Over the past 10 years, PALL has underperformed LIT with an annualized return of 8.36%, while LIT has yielded a comparatively higher 14.81% annualized return.

PALL

• 1D: -4.89%
• 1M: -11.74%
• YTD: -18.39%
• 6M: -11.90%
• 1Y: 28.17%
• 3Y*: -3.26%
• 5Y*: -14.89%
• 10Y*: 8.36%

LIT

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: -2.59%
• YTD: 30.84%
• 6M: 34.89%
• 1Y: 135.24%
• 3Y*: 11.20%
• 5Y*: 4.98%
• 10Y*: 14.81%

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

PALL vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	-18.39%	74.07%	-17.38%	-38.77%	-6.28%	-23.26%	25.27%	53.94%	17.23%	55.73%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	30.84%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	3.27%	-28.63%	64.19%

Correlation

The correlation between PALL and LIT is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2010	0.33

Return for Risk

PALL vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

PALL

PALL Risk / Return Rank: 19
PALL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
PALL Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
PALL Omega Ratio Rank: 21
PALL Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
PALL Martin Ratio Rank: 17

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 94
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

PALL vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) 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.

	PALL	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	4.16	-3.60
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	4.45	-3.42
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.59	-0.45
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.78	10.37	-9.59
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.74	35.19	-33.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PALL vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PALL Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 4.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PALL 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

	PALL	LIT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56	4.16	-3.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.35	0.16	-0.51
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22	0.48	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.27	-0.09

Drawdowns

PALL vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PALL drawdown since its inception was -73.63%, which is greater than LIT's maximum drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALL and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	PALL	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.63%	-65.91%	-7.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.18%	-13.11%	-23.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.47%	-53.01%	+12.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.63%	-65.91%	-7.72%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.63%	-65.91%	-7.72%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-59.78%	-8.53%	-51.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.81%	-33.63%	+6.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.25%	3.86%	+12.39%

Volatility

PALL vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) has a higher volatility of 10.54% compared to Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) at 8.67%. This indicates that PALL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PALL	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.54%	8.67%	+1.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.87%	22.00%	+19.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.24%	32.68%	+17.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.46%	31.83%	+10.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.91%	30.66%	+7.25%

PALL vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

PALL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PALL vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

PALL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.37%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 PALL and LIT in my portfolio?

PALL and LIT have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PALL or LIT?

PALL has higher volatility (10.54%) compared to LIT (8.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALL dropped -73.63% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, PALL or LIT?

On 10-year performance, LIT leads with 14.81% vs 8.36% for PALL. On fees, PALL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 8.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PALL or LIT?

Over the 10-year period, LIT has performed better with a 14.81% return vs 8.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PALL or LIT?

PALL is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

LIT has the higher dividend yield at 0.37%, compared with 0.00% for PALL.

What is the main difference between PALL and LIT?

PALL is categorized as Precious Metals, while LIT is Commodity Producers Equities. PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALL and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.16 vs 0.56), 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.