YOLO vs. LIT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

YOLO (AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - YOLO is a Cannabis fund actively managed by AdvisorShares, while LIT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index. YOLO is actively managed, while LIT is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, YOLO returned -32.93%/yr vs 3.06%/yr for LIT. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

YOLO vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (YOLO) 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, YOLO achieves a -19.39% return, which is significantly lower than LIT's 20.92% return.

YOLO

• 1D: -5.00%
• 1M: -8.90%
• YTD: -19.39%
• 6M: -20.12%
• 1Y: 51.14%
• 3Y*: 2.29%
• 5Y*: -32.93%
• 10Y*: —

LIT

• 1D: -5.01%
• 1M: -8.03%
• YTD: 20.92%
• 6M: 17.98%
• 1Y: 114.29%
• 3Y*: 8.82%
• 5Y*: 3.06%
• 10Y*: 14.22%

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

YOLO vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
YOLO AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF	-19.39%	36.36%	-17.81%	-15.10%	-72.21%	-20.48%	47.17%	-51.27%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	20.92%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	-5.23%

Correlation

The correlation between YOLO and LIT is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2019	0.41

The correlation between YOLO and LIT shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.41 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

YOLO vs. LIT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	YOLO	LIT
Financial Services	43.1%	-
Healthcare	29.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	10.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.8%	9.1%
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Basic Materials	-	49.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	25.0%
Technology	-	16.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

YOLO vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

YOLO

YOLO Risk / Return Rank: 26
YOLO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
YOLO Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
YOLO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
YOLO Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
YOLO Martin Ratio Rank: 20

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 91
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 85
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

YOLO vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (YOLO) 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.

	YOLO	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	3.35	-2.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	3.73	-2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.49	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.25	6.98	-5.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.25	24.36	-22.11

YOLO vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current YOLO Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 3.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of YOLO 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

YOLO vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum YOLO drawdown since its inception was -94.68%, which is greater than LIT's maximum drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for YOLO and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	YOLO	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.68%	-65.91%	-28.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.09%	-16.46%	-24.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-66.45%	-53.01%	-13.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-92.37%	-65.91%	-26.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-65.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-90.57%	-15.46%	-75.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.06%	-33.56%	-35.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.81%	4.71%	+18.10%

Volatility

YOLO vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF (YOLO) has a higher volatility of 13.47% compared to Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) at 11.76%. This indicates that YOLO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	YOLO	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.47%	11.76%	+1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.34%	24.39%	+13.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.07%	34.30%	+40.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	53.79%	32.09%	+21.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	51.30%	30.75%	+20.55%

YOLO vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both YOLO and LIT have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

YOLO vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

YOLO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.40%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%
YOLO AdvisorShares Pure Cannabis ETF	0.00%	0.00%	3.57%	1.17%	0.55%	3.93%	2.03%	4.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both YOLO and LIT in my portfolio?

YOLO and LIT have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, YOLO or LIT?

YOLO has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to LIT (11.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, YOLO dropped -94.68% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, YOLO or LIT?

On 5-year performance, LIT leads with 3.06% vs -32.93% for YOLO. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 11.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, YOLO or LIT?

Over the 5-year period, LIT has performed better with a 3.06% return vs -32.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, YOLO or LIT?

YOLO and LIT have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

LIT has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.00% for YOLO.

What is the main difference between YOLO and LIT?

YOLO is categorized as Cannabis, while LIT is Lithium & Battery Metals. They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and Global X.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.35 vs 0.69), 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.