BCCC vs. URA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCCC is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Global X, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. BCCC is actively managed, while URA is passively managed. Over the past year, BCCC returned -28.91% vs 27.21% for URA. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

BCCC vs. URA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -23.44% return, which is significantly lower than URA's 6.67% return.

BCCC

• 1D: -1.69%
• 1M: -14.48%
• YTD: -23.44%
• 6M: -22.51%
• 1Y: -28.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

URA

• 1D: -2.61%
• 1M: -6.90%
• YTD: 6.67%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 27.21%
• 3Y*: 34.68%
• 5Y*: 20.40%
• 10Y*: 16.42%

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

BCCC vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	-23.44%	-7.02%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	6.67%	36.74%

Correlation

The correlation between BCCC and URA is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	0.42

Return for Risk

BCCC vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCCC

BCCC Risk / Return Rank: 3
BCCC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Omega Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Martin Ratio Rank: 3

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 19
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 19
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

BCCC vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). 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.

	BCCC	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.82	0.53	-1.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.03	1.09	-2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.87	1.13	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.70	0.87	-1.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.27	1.87	-3.14

BCCC vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCCC Sharpe Ratio is -0.82, which is lower than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCCC and URA, 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

BCCC vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.63%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCCC	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.63%	-93.54%	+51.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.63%	-31.48%	-10.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-37.81%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.90%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-38.81%	-48.27%	+9.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.87%	-74.90%	+57.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.86%	14.58%	+8.28%

Volatility

BCCC vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) is 10.66%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 17.86%. This indicates that BCCC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCCC	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.66%	17.86%	-7.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.99%	39.53%	-10.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.32%	51.33%	-16.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.04%	43.92%	-8.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.04%	37.95%	-2.91%

BCCC vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCCC vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 63.85%, more than URA's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	63.85%	29.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	4.57%	4.88%	2.86%	6.07%	0.76%	5.84%	1.69%	1.66%	0.44%	2.03%	7.28%	1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCCC and URA in my portfolio?

BCCC and URA have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCCC or URA?

URA has higher volatility (17.86%) compared to BCCC (10.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.63% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, BCCC or URA?

On 1-year performance, URA leads with 27.21% vs -28.91% for BCCC. On fees, URA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, BCCC has been the lower-risk option at 10.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCCC or URA?

Over the 1-year period, URA has performed better with a 27.21% return vs -28.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCCC or URA?

URA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for BCCC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCCC or URA?

BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 63.85%, compared with 4.57% for URA.

What is the main difference between BCCC and URA?

BCCC is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while URA is Uranium. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

URA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.53 vs -0.82), 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.