LIT vs PDBC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LIT and PDBC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LIT is Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF, while PDBC is Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF. LIT is broader by holdings count, with 46 positions versus 3 for PDBC. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PDBC ahead on AIQ Score, 75 versus 38.
What is the main difference between LIT and PDBC?
LIT holds 46 positions to PDBC's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LIT | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.74% |
| Holdings | 46 | 3 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.78% | 2.54% |
| Average volume | 224,936 | 6,428,418 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +51.8% |
| YTD return | -0.9% | +51.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -6% | +11.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 20.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.1% | -16.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -65.9% | -27.6% |
| Beta | 1.43 | -0.40 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 2.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 38/100 | 75/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 26/100 | 77/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF vs Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
PDBC leads
PDBC leads by 37 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 28 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support PDBC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF
Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDBC over LIT, 75 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. PDBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. PDBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PDBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 37 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF and Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LIT vs PDBC: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | LIT | PDBC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.75% | 0.74% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 46 | 3 | LIT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.78% | 2.54% | PDBC |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -65.9% | -27.6% | PDBC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 30.6% | 20.8% | PDBC |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare LIT and PDBC against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum26 vs 77PDBC +51
- Quality46 vs 72PDBC +26
- Risk Resilience60 vs 78PDBC +18
3 of 3 evidence groups favor PDBC. PDBC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
PDBC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LIT and PDBC both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | LIT | PDBC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.74% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 46 | 3 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 224,936 | 6,428,418 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 20.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.1% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 1.93 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.43 | -0.40 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
LIT and PDBC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
37 holdings are unique to LIT, and 2 holdings are unique to PDBC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What LIT adds that PDBC doesn’t
| Holding | LIT | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| RIORIO TINTO PLC-SPON ADR | 23.07% | Not held |
| 6752.TPANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION | 6.7% | Not held |
| 002371.SZNAURA TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO-A | 6.24% | Not held |
| 006400.KSSAMSUNG SDI CO LTD | 5.74% | Not held |
| 6762.TTDK CORP | 5.28% | Not held |
| ALBALBEMARLE CORP | 4.42% | Not held |
What PDBC adds that LIT doesn’t
| Holding | PDBC | LIT |
|---|---|---|
| Invesco Premier US Government Money Portfolio | 75.5% | Not held |
| POWERSHARES CAYMAN FUND | 24.42% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PDBC | 38 vs 75 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBC | Price vs 50-day -11.7% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day -14.2% vs 16.6% |
| Risk Resilience | PDBC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LIT and PDBC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 37 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on PDBC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PDBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 37 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDBC +37
- 38 vs 75
- 7 sessions ago
- PDBC +33
- 39 vs 72
- 30 sessions ago
- PDBC +28
- 38 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- PDBC +17
- 57 vs 74
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 4 bearish
Only LIT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.82%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only PDBC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.74%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.66%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.2%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1LIT closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBC's edge.
- 2LIT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PDBC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
PDBC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LIT | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | 3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.9% | 12.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.1% | 15.1% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | 51.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 51.8% |
Technicals
PDBC has the stronger structure| Metric | LIT | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.3 | 68.7 |
| ADX (14) | 28.7 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.7% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.2% | 16.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 15.4% |
Risk
PDBC is the more resilient| Metric | LIT | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | -0.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 2.96 |
| Max drawdown | -30.1% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -29.9% | -0.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 20.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LIT and PDBC?
LIT holds 46 positions to PDBC's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LIT and PDBC overlap?
LIT and PDBC share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 37 holdings are unique to LIT, and 2 holdings are unique to PDBC. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LIT or PDBC?
LIT holds more positions: 46 versus 3 for PDBC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.75% for LIT and 0.74% for PDBC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PDBC, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.54% against 0.78% for LIT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
LIT has been more volatile over the past year, at 30.6% annualized against 20.8% for PDBC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PDBC fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -27.6% against -65.9% for LIT.
Compare LIT and PDBC with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.