ZAP vs. LIT

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZAP is a Utilities Equities fund tracking the Global X U.S. Electrification Index, while LIT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ZAP returned 27.21% vs 76.04% for LIT. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZAP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

ZAP vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) 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, ZAP achieves a 16.86% return, which is significantly higher than LIT's 8.76% return.

ZAP

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.43%
• 6M: 14.11%
• YTD: 16.86%
• 1Y: 27.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LIT

• 1D: -2.88%
• 1M: -14.36%
• 6M: 0.77%
• YTD: 8.76%
• 1Y: 76.04%
• 3Y*: 2.03%
• 5Y*: -1.41%
• 10Y*: 12.25%

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

ZAP vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	16.86%	21.84%	1.26%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	8.76%	60.05%	-5.85%

Correlation

The correlation between ZAP and LIT is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2024	0.35

Return for Risk

ZAP vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 69
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 62
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 64

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 80
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 75
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

ZAP vs. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) 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.

	ZAP	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	2.22	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	2.76	-0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.35	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.78	3.32	+0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.11	12.35	-3.24

ZAP vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZAP Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZAP 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

ZAP vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZAP drawdown since its inception was -12.38%, smaller than the maximum LIT drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZAP and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZAP	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.38%	-65.91%	+53.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-23.01%	+15.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-52.39%	—
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	-3.35%	-23.96%	+20.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.58%	-33.51%	+30.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.00%	6.18%	-3.18%

Volatility

ZAP vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) is 4.46%, while Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) has a volatility of 10.71%. This indicates that ZAP 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

	ZAP	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.46%	10.71%	-6.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.07%	24.56%	-12.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.53%	34.44%	-18.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	32.08%	-15.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.81%	30.73%	-13.92%

ZAP vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZAP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZAP vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

ZAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, 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%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.61%	1.81%	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 ZAP and LIT in my portfolio?

ZAP and LIT have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZAP or LIT?

LIT has higher volatility (10.71%) compared to ZAP (4.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZAP dropped -12.38% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, ZAP or LIT?

On 1-year performance, LIT leads with 76.04% vs 27.21% for ZAP. On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ZAP has been the lower-risk option at 4.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZAP or LIT?

Over the 1-year period, LIT has performed better with a 76.04% return vs 27.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZAP or LIT?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

ZAP has the higher dividend yield at 1.61%, compared with 0.72% for LIT.

What is the main difference between ZAP and LIT?

ZAP is categorized as Utilities Equities, while LIT is Lithium & Battery Metals. ZAP tracks Global X U.S. Electrification Index, while LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for ZAP and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.76), 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.