TURF vs. LIT

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

TURF (T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TURF is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by T. Rowe Price, while LIT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index. TURF is actively managed, while LIT is passively managed. Over the past year, TURF returned 32.09% vs 71.32% for LIT. Their 0.50 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. TURF charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

TURF vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF (TURF) 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, TURF achieves a 11.92% return, which is significantly higher than LIT's 7.47% return.

TURF

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 3.72%
• 6M: 0.81%
• YTD: 11.92%
• 1Y: 32.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 27.42%

LIT

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: -9.30%
• 6M: -0.59%
• YTD: 7.47%
• 1Y: 71.32%
• 3Y*: 3.89%
• 5Y*: -3.28%
• 10Y*: 12.31%
• ALL TIME*: 6.37%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	$15.25M	$15.72M	$33.64M
TURF T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF	$1.07M	$3.82M	$3.10M

TURF vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TURF T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF	11.92%	17.82%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	7.47%	71.89%

Correlation

The correlation between TURF and LIT is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2025	0.50

The correlation between TURF and LIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

TURF vs. LIT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TURF	LIT
Basic Materials	50.8%	47.9%
Energy	32.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	15.2%	-
Communication Services	3.8%	-
Financial Services	2.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	1.1%	9.2%
Technology	0.4%	20.0%
Utilities	0.3%	-
Industrials	0.1%	22.9%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TURF vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TURF

TURF Risk / Return Rank: 67
TURF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
TURF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
TURF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
TURF Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
TURF Martin Ratio Rank: 57

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 77
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 67

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TURF vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF (TURF) 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.

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.

	TURF	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	2.09	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.46	2.64	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.34	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.44	2.67	-0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.29	8.38	-1.09

TURF vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TURF Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is comparable to the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TURF 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.

Drawdowns

TURF vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TURF drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, smaller than the maximum LIT drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TURF and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	TURF	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.24%	-65.91%	+52.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.24%	-26.84%	+13.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-49.14%	—
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	-8.76%	-24.86%	+16.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.68%	-33.48%	+30.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.41%	8.53%	-4.12%

Volatility

TURF vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF (TURF) is 4.31%, while Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a volatility of 9.27%. This indicates that TURF 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

	TURF	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.31%	9.27%	-4.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.42%	24.63%	-11.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.17%	34.43%	-17.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.91%	31.93%	-15.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	30.80%	-13.89%

TURF vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

TURF has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

TURF vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

TURF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, more than LIT's 0.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.72%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%
TURF T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF	1.33%	1.49%	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 TURF and LIT in my portfolio?

TURF and LIT have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TURF or LIT?

LIT has higher volatility (9.27%) compared to TURF (4.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TURF dropped -13.24% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, TURF or LIT?

On 1-year performance, LIT leads with 71.32% vs 32.09% for TURF. On fees, TURF is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, TURF has been the lower-risk option at 4.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TURF or LIT?

Over the 1-year period, LIT has performed better with a 71.32% return vs 32.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TURF or LIT?

TURF is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

TURF has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.72% for LIT.

What is the main difference between TURF and LIT?

TURF is categorized as Natural Resources, while LIT is Lithium & Battery Metals. They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TURF and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.88), 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.