USNG vs. LITP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) and LITP (Sprott Lithium Miners ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. USNG is actively managed, while LITP is passively managed. Over the past year, USNG returned 40.50% vs 218.79% for LITP. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. USNG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for LITP.

Performance

USNG vs. LITP - 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 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, USNG achieves a 31.42% return, which is significantly higher than LITP's 28.96% return.

USNG

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -1.95%
• YTD: 31.42%
• 6M: 28.41%
• 1Y: 40.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LITP

• 1D: -4.66%
• 1M: -7.17%
• YTD: 28.96%
• 6M: 41.58%
• 1Y: 218.79%
• 3Y*: -0.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

USNG vs. LITP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	31.42%	10.81%
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	28.96%	133.02%

Correlation

The correlation between USNG and LITP is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2025	0.15

USNG vs. LITP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	USNG	LITP
Energy	78.0%	-
Industrials	13.8%	-
Utilities	5.0%	-
Financial Services	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.4%	100.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

USNG vs. LITP — Risk / Return Rank

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

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 80
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 89

LITP

LITP Risk / Return Rank: 87
LITP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
LITP Omega Ratio Rank: 74
LITP Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LITP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

USNG vs. LITP - 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 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.

	USNG	LITP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	3.78	-1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	3.67	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.45	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.97	7.08	-1.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.70	21.48	-1.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

USNG vs. LITP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USNG Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is lower than the LITP Sharpe Ratio of 3.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USNG 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

	USNG	LITP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.47	3.78	-1.31
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.66	-0.07	+2.73

Drawdowns

USNG vs. LITP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USNG drawdown since its inception was -6.82%, smaller than the maximum LITP drawdown of -74.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USNG and LITP.

Drawdown Indicators

	USNG	LITP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.82%	-74.72%	+67.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.82%	-31.12%	+24.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-74.31%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.10%	-14.47%	+10.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.40%	-42.29%	+40.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	10.23%	-8.16%

Volatility

USNG vs. LITP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) is 6.40%, while Sprott Lithium Miners ETF (LITP) has a volatility of 13.36%. This indicates that USNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LITP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	USNG	LITP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.40%	13.36%	-6.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.56%	39.69%	-27.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.52%	58.34%	-41.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.55%	47.34%	-30.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.55%	47.34%	-30.79%

USNG vs. LITP - Expense Ratio Comparison

USNG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than LITP's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

USNG vs. LITP - Dividend Comparison

USNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.13%, less than LITP's 5.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
LITP Sprott Lithium Miners ETF	5.74%	7.41%	6.55%	2.80%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.13%	1.10%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both USNG and LITP in my portfolio?

USNG and LITP have a correlation of 0.15, 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 LITP?

LITP has higher volatility (13.36%) compared to USNG (6.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USNG dropped -6.82% vs LITP's -74.72%.

Which ETF is better, USNG or LITP?

On 1-year performance, LITP leads with 218.79% vs 40.50% for USNG. On fees, USNG is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, USNG has been the lower-risk option at 6.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, USNG or LITP?

Over the 1-year period, LITP has performed better with a 218.79% return vs 40.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, USNG or LITP?

USNG is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LITP.

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

LITP has the higher dividend yield at 5.74%, compared with 1.13% for USNG.

What is the main difference between USNG and LITP?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for USNG and 0.65% for LITP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LITP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.78 vs 2.47), 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.