SETM vs. LITP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SETM (Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF) and LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) are both Energy Equities funds from Sprott - SETM tracks the Nasdaq Sprott Energy Transition Materials Select Index - AUD - Benchmark TR Gross while LITP tracks the Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, SETM returned 30.90%/yr vs 1.48%/yr for LITP. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

SETM vs. LITP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF (SETM) and Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SETM achieves a 27.22% return, which is significantly lower than LITP's 35.27% return.

SETM

• 1D: -4.09%
• 1M: 2.39%
• YTD: 27.22%
• 6M: 33.66%
• 1Y: 144.21%
• 3Y*: 30.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LITP

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: -7.39%
• YTD: 35.27%
• 6M: 46.45%
• 1Y: 246.91%
• 3Y*: 1.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SETM vs. LITP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SETM Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF	27.22%	95.27%	-13.24%	-11.03%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	35.27%	94.65%	-43.85%	-36.14%

Correlation

The correlation between SETM and LITP is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2023	0.76

The correlation between SETM and LITP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

SETM vs. LITP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SETM	LITP
Basic Materials	73.2%	100.0%
Energy	25.8%	-
Industrials	0.9%	-
Technology	0.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SETM vs. LITP — Risk / Return Rank

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

SETM

SETM Risk / Return Rank: 82
SETM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
SETM Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
SETM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
SETM Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
SETM Martin Ratio Rank: 84

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 90
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 80
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. LITP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF (SETM) and Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP). 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.

	SETM	LITP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	4.28	-1.03
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.29	3.93	-0.64
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.49	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.61	7.47	-1.86
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.42	22.81	-5.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SETM vs. LITP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SETM Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is comparable to the LITP Sharpe Ratio of 4.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SETM and LITP, 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

	SETM	LITP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.25	4.28	-1.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	-0.04	+0.63

Drawdowns

SETM vs. LITP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SETM drawdown since its inception was -42.81%, smaller than the maximum LITP drawdown of -74.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SETM and LITP.

Drawdown Indicators

	SETM	LITP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.81%	-74.72%	+31.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.85%	-31.12%	+5.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.81%	-74.31%	+31.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.30%	-10.29%	+2.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.26%	-42.32%	+28.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.31%	10.19%	-1.88%

Volatility

SETM vs. LITP - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF (SETM) and Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) have volatilities of 13.58% and 13.45%, 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	LITP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.58%	13.45%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.49%	39.39%	-4.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.71%	58.30%	-13.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.57%	47.30%	-10.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.57%	47.30%	-10.73%

SETM vs. LITP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both SETM and LITP have an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Dividends

SETM vs. LITP - Dividend Comparison

SETM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, less than LITP's 5.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	5.48%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%
SETM Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF	1.23%	1.56%	2.07%	2.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SETM and LITP in my portfolio?

SETM and LITP have a correlation of 0.76, 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 LITP?

SETM has higher volatility (13.58%) compared to LITP (13.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SETM dropped -42.81% vs LITP's -74.72%.

Which ETF is better, SETM or LITP?

On 3-year performance, SETM leads with 30.90% vs 1.48% for LITP. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. On volatility, LITP has been the lower-risk option at 13.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SETM or LITP?

Over the 3-year period, SETM has performed better with a 30.90% return vs 1.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SETM or LITP?

SETM and LITP have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

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

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 5.48%, compared with 1.23% for SETM.

What is the main difference between SETM and LITP?

SETM tracks Nasdaq Sprott Energy Transition Materials Select Index - AUD - Benchmark TR Gross, while LITP tracks Nasdaq Sprott Lithium Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.28 vs 3.25), 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.