LIT vs PICK: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LIT and PICK are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LIT is Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF, while PICK is iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF. PICK is broader by holdings count, with 284 positions versus 46 for LIT. LIT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PICK ahead on AIQ Score, 52 versus 38.
What is the main difference between LIT and PICK?
PICK holds 284 positions to LIT's 46, and 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LIT | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.39% |
| Holdings | 46 | 284 |
| Top-10 concentration | 66.5% | 47.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.78% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 224,936 | 746,524 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +25.7% |
| YTD return | -0.9% | +12.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -6% | +10.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 31.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.1% | -19.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -65.9% | -36.3% |
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.80 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 1.13 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 38/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 26/100 | 31/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF vs iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF
PICK leads
PICK leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support PICK, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF
iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PICK over LIT, 52 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. PICK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. PICK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PICK today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PICK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LIT vs PICK: 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 | PICK | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.75% | 0.39% | PICK |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 46 | 284 | PICK |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 66.5% | 47.1% | PICK |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.78% | 2.28% | PICK |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -65.9% | -36.3% | PICK |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 30.6% | 31.4% | Similar |
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 PICK 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.
- Quality46 vs 62PICK +16
- Risk Resilience60 vs 66PICK +6
- Momentum26 vs 31PICK +5
3 of 3 evidence groups favor PICK. PICK’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 3 active signals are unchanged.
PICK'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 PICK 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 | PICK | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.39% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 46 | 284 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 224,936 | 746,524 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 31.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -30.1% | -19.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.80 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.65 | 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 PICK share 1.71% of their weighted exposure across 11 common holdings.
26 holdings are unique to LIT, and 237 holdings are unique to PICK. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
LIT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 66.45% of the fund, against 47.06% for PICK (46 holdings vs 284). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | LIT | PICK | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLS.AXPLS GROUP LTD | 3.05% | 0.64% | 0.64% |
| MIN.AXMINERAL RESOURCES LTD | 2.32% | 0.44% | 0.44% |
| IGO.AXIGO LTD | 1.17% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
| LTR.AXLIONTOWN LTD | 0.5% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| AMG.ASAMG CRITICAL MATERIALS N.V. | 0.39% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| LAC.TOLITHIUM AMERICAS CORP | 0.3% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| ELV.AXELEVRA LITHIUM LTD | 0.24% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| SGMLSIGMA LITHIUM CORP | 0.17% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What LIT adds that PICK doesn’t
| Holding | LIT | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PICK adds that LIT doesn’t
| Holding | PICK | LIT |
|---|---|---|
| BHP.AXBHP GROUP LTD | 13.43% | Not held |
| RIO.LRIO TINTO PLC | 6.23% | Not held |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 6.2% | Not held |
| GLEN.LGLENCORE PLC | 4.51% | Not held |
| AAL.LANGLO AMERICAN PLC | 3.4% | Not held |
| NUENUCOR | 3.24% | 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 PICK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PICK | 38 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PICK | Price vs 50-day -11.7% vs -7.7%; vs 200-day -14.2% vs -4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | PICK | Risk Resilience 60 vs 66 |
| 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 PICK 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 14 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 PICK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PICK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PICK +14
- 38 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- PICK +12
- 39 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- PICK +10
- 38 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- PICK +11
- 57 vs 68
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PICK
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.67%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
PICK leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 -0.64%, 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 Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to PICK's edge.
- 2LIT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PICK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
PICK leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LIT | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | -7.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.9% | -1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.1% | -6% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 25.7% |
Technicals
PICK has the stronger structure| Metric | LIT | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.3 | 37.8 |
| ADX (14) | 28.7 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.7% | -7.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.2% | -4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 19.7% |
Risk
PICK is the more resilient| Metric | LIT | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 1.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 1.13 |
| Max drawdown | -30.1% | -19.5% |
| Current drawdown | -29.9% | -16.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 31.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LIT and PICK?
PICK holds 284 positions to LIT's 46, and 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LIT and PICK overlap?
LIT and PICK share 1.71% of their weighted exposure across 11 common holdings. 26 holdings are unique to LIT, and 237 holdings are unique to PICK. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LIT or PICK?
PICK holds more positions: 284 versus 46 for LIT.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
PICK has the lower expense ratio, 0.39% a year against 0.75% for LIT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PICK, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.28% against 0.78% for LIT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 30.6% annualized for LIT and 31.4% for PICK.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PICK fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -36.3% against -65.9% for LIT.
Compare LIT and PICK 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.