SETM vs. ION

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

SETM (Sprott Critical Materials ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SETM is a Materials fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index, while ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, SETM returned 18.54%/yr vs 7.83%/yr for ION. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SETM charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

SETM vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) 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, SETM achieves a -2.45% return, which is significantly higher than ION's -12.05% return.

SETM

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: -17.28%
• 6M: -19.37%
• YTD: -2.45%
• 1Y: 44.18%
• 3Y*: 18.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.02%

ION

• 1D: -2.66%
• 1M: -19.28%
• 6M: -23.00%
• YTD: -12.05%
• 1Y: 45.93%
• 3Y*: 7.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.98%

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

SETM vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF	-2.45%	95.27%	-13.24%	-13.11%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	-12.05%	108.37%	-20.02%	-26.70%

Correlation

The correlation between SETM and ION is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.80

The correlation between SETM and ION has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

SETM vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SETM	ION
Basic Materials	74.1%	14.1%
Energy	25.1%	2.7%
Industrials	0.8%	1.8%
Technology	0.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	3.6%
Financial Services	-	14.4%
Healthcare	-	2.2%
Real Estate	-	2.4%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SETM vs. ION — Risk / Return Rank

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

SETM

SETM Risk / Return Rank: 36
SETM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
SETM Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
SETM Omega Ratio Rank: 35
SETM Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
SETM Martin Ratio Rank: 35

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 39
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 40
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

SETM vs. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) 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.

	SETM	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.95	1.15	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	1.65	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.20	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	1.37	+0.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.99	4.26	-0.27

SETM vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SETM Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is comparable to the ION Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SETM 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

SETM vs. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SETM drawdown since its inception was -42.81%, smaller than the maximum ION drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SETM and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	SETM	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.81%	-52.08%	+9.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.92%	-33.66%	+4.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.81%	-45.11%	+2.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-28.92%	-33.66%	+4.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.21%	-23.68%	+8.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.09%	10.81%	+0.28%

Volatility

SETM vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) have volatilities of 9.73% and 9.58%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SETM	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.73%	9.58%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.09%	31.29%	+5.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.76%	40.13%	+6.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.18%	31.64%	+5.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.18%	31.64%	+5.54%

SETM vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

SETM vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

SETM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.60%, less than ION's 1.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.69%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%
SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF	1.60%	1.56%	2.07%	2.47%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SETM and ION in my portfolio?

SETM and ION have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SETM or ION?

SETM has higher volatility (9.73%) compared to ION (9.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SETM dropped -42.81% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, SETM or ION?

On 3-year performance, SETM leads with 18.54% vs 7.83% for ION. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, ION has been the lower-risk option at 9.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SETM or ION?

Over the 3-year period, SETM has performed better with a 18.54% return vs 7.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SETM or ION?

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

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

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.69%, compared with 1.60% for SETM.

What is the main difference between SETM and ION?

SETM is categorized as Materials, while ION is Lithium & Battery Metals. SETM tracks Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index, while ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. They also come from different issuers: Sprott and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SETM and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs 0.95), 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.