USNG vs. BATT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - USNG is a Infrastructure Equities fund actively managed by Amplify, while BATT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund actively managed by Amplify. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, USNG returned 32.07% vs 49.49% for BATT. Their 0.36 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

USNG vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USNG achieves a 25.43% return, which is significantly higher than BATT's 3.91% return.

USNG

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -3.22%
• 6M: 12.87%
• YTD: 25.43%
• 1Y: 32.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.38%

BATT

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: -5.22%
• 6M: -5.47%
• YTD: 3.91%
• 1Y: 49.49%
• 3Y*: 3.98%
• 5Y*: -2.05%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.93%

*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)
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	$677.09K	$717.59K	$1.32M
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	$437.77K	$274.58K	$158.86K

USNG vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	25.43%	10.51%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	3.91%	61.26%

Correlation

The correlation between USNG and BATT is 0.40, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2025	0.36

USNG vs. BATT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	USNG	BATT
Energy	80.9%	-
Industrials	7.7%	17.7%
Utilities	5.2%	-
Financial Services	4.7%	0.2%
Basic Materials	1.5%	57.4%
Communication Services	-	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	20.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	3.1%

Return for Risk

USNG vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

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

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 76
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 72
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 58
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 58
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

USNG vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). 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.

	USNG	BATT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.46	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	1.94	+0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.25	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	2.13	+0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.67	6.06	+4.60

USNG vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USNG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USNG and BATT, 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

USNG vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USNG drawdown since its inception was -11.93%, smaller than the maximum BATT drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USNG and BATT.

Drawdown Indicators

	USNG	BATT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.93%	-69.38%	+57.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.93%	-23.02%	+11.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-45.26%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.47%	-20.47%	+12.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.85%	-34.40%	+32.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	8.08%	-5.15%

Volatility

USNG vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) is 6.49%, while Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) has a volatility of 10.06%. This indicates that USNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BATT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	USNG	BATT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.49%	10.06%	-3.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.82%	28.05%	-14.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.46%	33.66%	-16.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.29%	30.00%	-12.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.29%	30.78%	-13.49%

USNG vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both USNG and BATT have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

USNG vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

USNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, less than BATT's 1.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.78%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.54%	1.10%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both USNG and BATT in my portfolio?

USNG and BATT have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, USNG or BATT?

BATT has higher volatility (10.06%) compared to USNG (6.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USNG dropped -11.93% vs BATT's -69.38%.

Which ETF is better, USNG or BATT?

On 1-year performance, BATT leads with 49.49% vs 32.07% for USNG. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. On volatility, USNG has been the lower-risk option at 6.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, USNG or BATT?

Over the 1-year period, BATT has performed better with a 49.49% return vs 32.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, USNG or BATT?

USNG and BATT have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, USNG or BATT?

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 1.54% for USNG.

What is the main difference between USNG and BATT?

USNG is categorized as Infrastructure Equities, while BATT is Lithium & Battery Metals.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USNG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.46), 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.