AMOM vs. NUKZ

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AMOM (QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF) and NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMOM is a Momentum fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts, while NUKZ is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index. AMOM is actively managed, while NUKZ is passively managed. Over the past year, AMOM returned 43.44% vs 46.32% for NUKZ. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AMOM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for NUKZ.

Performance

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF (AMOM) and Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMOM achieves a 26.64% return, which is significantly higher than NUKZ's 16.31% return.

AMOM

• 1D: 1.65%
• 1M: 10.64%
• YTD: 26.64%
• 6M: 27.60%
• 1Y: 43.44%
• 3Y*: 27.79%
• 5Y*: 12.57%
• 10Y*: —

NUKZ

• 1D: 2.23%
• 1M: 1.39%
• YTD: 16.31%
• 6M: 15.14%
• 1Y: 46.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AMOM QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF	26.64%	7.69%	26.74%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	16.31%	56.57%	62.98%

Correlation

The correlation between AMOM and NUKZ is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.71

The correlation between AMOM and NUKZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMOM	NUKZ
Technology	41.9%	1.4%
Industrials	14.5%	45.9%
Communication Services	14.3%	-
Healthcare	7.7%	-
Financial Services	6.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	-
Utilities	3.8%	35.8%
Basic Materials	2.7%	4.0%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Energy	1.2%	12.9%

Return for Risk

AMOM vs. NUKZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMOM

AMOM Risk / Return Rank: 61
AMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
AMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
AMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 57
AMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
AMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 66

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 46
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 39
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF (AMOM) and Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ). 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.

	AMOM	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	1.57	+0.45
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	2.21	+0.47
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.26	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.40	2.85	+0.55
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.24	7.20	+5.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMOM Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the NUKZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMOM and NUKZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMOM	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.02	1.57	+0.45
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	1.81	-1.07

Drawdowns

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMOM drawdown since its inception was -39.68%, which is greater than NUKZ's maximum drawdown of -33.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMOM and NUKZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMOM	NUKZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.68%	-33.03%	-6.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.10%	-16.51%	+3.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.26%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-3.11%	+3.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.82%	-6.01%	-4.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.64%	6.54%	-2.90%

Volatility

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF (AMOM) is 7.14%, while Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a volatility of 9.95%. This indicates that AMOM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NUKZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMOM	NUKZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.14%	9.95%	-2.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.72%	22.02%	-5.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.57%	29.61%	-8.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.74%	32.67%	-8.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.96%	32.67%	-7.71%

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMOM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than NUKZ's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMOM vs. NUKZ - Dividend Comparison

AMOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than NUKZ's 0.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AMOM QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF	0.07%	0.09%	0.00%	0.47%	0.72%	0.74%	24.31%	5.51%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.78%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMOM and NUKZ in my portfolio?

AMOM and NUKZ have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMOM or NUKZ?

NUKZ has higher volatility (9.95%) compared to AMOM (7.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMOM dropped -39.68% vs NUKZ's -33.03%.

Which ETF is better, AMOM or NUKZ?

On 1-year performance, NUKZ leads with 46.32% vs 43.44% for AMOM. On fees, AMOM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, AMOM has been the lower-risk option at 7.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMOM or NUKZ?

Over the 1-year period, NUKZ has performed better with a 46.32% return vs 43.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMOM or NUKZ?

AMOM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMOM or NUKZ?

NUKZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.07% for AMOM.

What is the main difference between AMOM and NUKZ?

AMOM is categorized as Momentum, while NUKZ is Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for AMOM and 0.85% for NUKZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AMOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.57), 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.