BLOK vs. URNM

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

BLOK (Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF) and URNM (Sprott Uranium Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BLOK is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Amplify, while URNM is a Uranium fund tracking the VettaFi Global Uranium Miners Index. BLOK is actively managed, while URNM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BLOK returned 11.50%/yr vs 12.61%/yr for URNM. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BLOK charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for URNM.

Performance

BLOK vs. URNM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) and Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (URNM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLOK achieves a 12.57% return, which is significantly higher than URNM's -0.56% return.

BLOK

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: 2.06%
• YTD: 12.57%
• 6M: 5.60%
• 1Y: 26.82%
• 3Y*: 50.68%
• 5Y*: 11.50%
• 10Y*: —

URNM

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: -9.26%
• YTD: -0.56%
• 6M: -0.53%
• 1Y: 30.38%
• 3Y*: 20.14%
• 5Y*: 12.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

BLOK vs. URNM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BLOK Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF	12.57%	32.64%	53.12%	99.62%	-62.36%	30.76%	90.17%	3.48%
URNM Sprott Uranium Miners ETF	-0.56%	40.78%	-14.13%	57.80%	-11.86%	78.32%	68.36%	4.05%

Correlation

The correlation between BLOK and URNM is 0.50, 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	0.50
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2019	0.47

The correlation between BLOK and URNM shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (3 years) to 0.50 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BLOK vs. URNM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLOK	URNM
Financial Services	59.2%	-
Technology	29.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	-
Communication Services	3.3%	-
Industrials	0.7%	-
Real Estate	0.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	2.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	97.7%
Healthcare	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BLOK vs. URNM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLOK

BLOK Risk / Return Rank: 20
BLOK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
BLOK Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
BLOK Omega Ratio Rank: 22
BLOK Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
BLOK Martin Ratio Rank: 17

URNM

URNM Risk / Return Rank: 22
URNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
URNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
URNM Omega Ratio Rank: 23
URNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
URNM Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

BLOK vs. URNM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) and Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (URNM). 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.

	BLOK	URNM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	0.60	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.08	1.18	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.14	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	0.82	-0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.49	2.00	-0.51

BLOK vs. URNM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLOK Sharpe Ratio is 0.63, which is comparable to the URNM Sharpe Ratio of 0.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLOK and URNM, 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

BLOK vs. URNM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLOK drawdown since its inception was -73.33%, which is greater than URNM's maximum drawdown of -50.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLOK and URNM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLOK	URNM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.33%	-50.78%	-22.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.64%	-38.72%	+3.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.64%	-50.78%	+15.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.33%	-50.78%	-22.55%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.97%	-35.02%	+22.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.03%	-18.09%	-7.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.41%	15.78%	+0.63%

Volatility

BLOK vs. URNM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) is 13.34%, while Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (URNM) has a volatility of 17.40%. This indicates that BLOK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URNM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BLOK	URNM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.34%	17.40%	-4.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.02%	41.84%	-11.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.18%	52.48%	-13.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.53%	48.58%	-6.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.05%	47.04%	-7.99%

BLOK vs. URNM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLOK has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than URNM's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLOK vs. URNM - Dividend Comparison

BLOK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%, less than URNM's 3.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BLOK Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF	0.64%	0.72%	6.00%	1.15%	0.00%	14.31%	1.88%	2.05%	1.30%
URNM Sprott Uranium Miners ETF	3.19%	3.18%	3.18%	3.63%	0.00%	6.70%	2.57%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLOK and URNM in my portfolio?

BLOK and URNM have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLOK or URNM?

URNM has higher volatility (17.40%) compared to BLOK (13.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLOK dropped -73.33% vs URNM's -50.78%.

Which ETF is better, BLOK or URNM?

On 5-year performance, URNM leads with 12.61% vs 11.50% for BLOK. On fees, BLOK is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, BLOK has been the lower-risk option at 13.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLOK or URNM?

Over the 5-year period, URNM has performed better with a 12.61% return vs 11.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLOK or URNM?

BLOK is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for URNM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLOK or URNM?

URNM has the higher dividend yield at 3.19%, compared with 0.64% for BLOK.

What is the main difference between BLOK and URNM?

BLOK is categorized as Blockchain, while URNM is Uranium. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for BLOK and 0.85% for URNM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLOK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.63 vs 0.60), 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.