1810.HK vs. NUCG.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

1810.HK (Xiaomi Corp) is a stock, while NUCG.L (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF) is Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the MarketVector Global Uranium and Nuclear Energy Infrastructure. Over the past 3 years, 1810.HK returned 33.79%/yr vs 36.37%/yr for NUCG.L. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a HK$10,000 investment in Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

1810.HK is traded in HKD, while NUCG.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the NUCG.L values have been converted to HKD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 1810.HK achieves a -33.33% return, which is significantly lower than NUCG.L's 3.64% return.

1810.HK

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: -17.61%
• YTD: -33.33%
• 6M: -39.01%
• 1Y: -49.81%
• 3Y*: 33.79%
• 5Y*: -1.43%
• 10Y*: —

NUCG.L

• 1D: 3.46%
• 1M: -8.58%
• YTD: 3.64%
• 6M: -0.55%
• 1Y: 28.47%
• 3Y*: 36.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
1810.HK Xiaomi Corp	-33.33%	13.91%	121.15%	14.04%
NUCG.L VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF	3.64%	56.40%	31.21%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between 1810.HK and NUCG.L is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.12
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2023	0.15

Return for Risk

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

1810.HK

1810.HK Risk / Return Rank: 4
1810.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
1810.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
1810.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 3
1810.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
1810.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 6

NUCG.L

NUCG.L Risk / Return Rank: 23
NUCG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
NUCG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
NUCG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 23
NUCG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
NUCG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L). 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.

	1810.HK	NUCG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.43	0.69	-2.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.36	1.21	-3.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.74	1.14	-0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.89	1.03	-1.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.51	2.31	-3.82

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 1810.HK Sharpe Ratio is -1.43, which is lower than the NUCG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 1810.HK and NUCG.L, 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

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 1810.HK drawdown since its inception was -76.06%, which is greater than NUCG.L's maximum drawdown of -35.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 1810.HK and NUCG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	1810.HK	NUCG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.06%	-35.42%	-40.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-57.04%	-26.58%	-30.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-57.04%	-35.42%	-21.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-70.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-56.44%	-20.38%	-36.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.06%	-10.57%	-31.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	33.21%	11.86%	+21.35%

Volatility

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) is 9.01%, while VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L) has a volatility of 12.55%. This indicates that 1810.HK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NUCG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	1810.HK	NUCG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.01%	12.55%	-3.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.27%	28.41%	-2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.47%	39.95%	-4.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	44.12%	34.45%	+9.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	45.76%	34.45%	+11.31%

Dividends

1810.HK vs. NUCG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 1810.HK nor NUCG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both 1810.HK and NUCG.L in my portfolio?

1810.HK and NUCG.L have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.