LIT vs SPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LIT and SPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LIT is Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF, while SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPY ahead on AIQ Score, 66 versus 38.
| Metric | LIT | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | -0.9% | +12.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | -6.4% | +11.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -67% | -25.4% |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 38/100 | 66/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 26/100 | 63/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
SPY leads
SPY leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support SPY.
Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over LIT, 66 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. SPY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Global X - Lithium & Battery Tech ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare LIT and SPY 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 84SPY +38
- Momentum26 vs 63SPY +37
- Risk Resilience60 vs 88SPY +28
- Value30 vs 41SPY +11
4 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
LIT vs SPY: five-year payout growth
SPY grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.05% a year against LIT's 4.80%. SPY never reduced its annual distribution in the window; LIT did in 4 years. LIT: The 2020 payout was 50.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. LIT: The payout jumped 214.5% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | LIT | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.80% | 5.05% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.249 | $5.691 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.315 | $7.281 |
| Calendar-year declines | 4 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #99 of 138 | #95 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPY | 38 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPY | Value 30 vs 41 |
| Technicals | SPY | Price vs 50-day -11.7% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -14.2% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 60 vs 88 |
| 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 SPY 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 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 SPY.
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 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
- 2LIT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3SPY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
SPY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LIT | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.9% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.9% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.1% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 16.4% |
Technicals
SPY has the stronger structure| Metric | LIT | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.3 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 28.7 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.7% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.2% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPY fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -67% for LIT.
Compare LIT and SPY 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.