BTO vs. NLR

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BTO (John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both funds - BTO is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by John Hancock, while NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. BTO is actively managed, while NLR is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BTO returned 11.77%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for NLR. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BTO charges 2.01%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.

Performance

BTO vs. NLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund (BTO) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BTO achieves a 20.32% return, which is significantly higher than NLR's -15.72% return. Over the past 10 years, BTO has outperformed NLR with an annualized return of 11.77%, while NLR has yielded a comparatively lower 10.63% annualized return.

BTO

• 1D: 2.39%
• 1M: 7.70%
• 6M: 16.53%
• YTD: 20.32%
• 1Y: 21.86%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 9.11%
• 10Y*: 11.77%

NLR

• 1D: -4.31%
• 1M: -16.00%
• 6M: -27.85%
• YTD: -15.72%
• 1Y: -6.24%
• 3Y*: 23.28%
• 5Y*: 17.50%
• 10Y*: 10.63%

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

BTO vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BTO John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund	20.32%	5.85%	28.92%	-1.16%	-23.58%	61.86%	-8.97%	38.87%	-25.68%	13.12%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-15.72%	56.50%	14.26%	36.67%	2.29%	13.63%	3.49%	0.20%	4.94%	8.25%

Correlation

The correlation between BTO and NLR is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2007	0.39

Over the past year, the correlation between BTO and NLR has dropped to 0.19 - well below their long-term average of 0.39, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

BTO vs. NLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BTO

BTO Risk / Return Rank: 22
BTO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
BTO Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
BTO Omega Ratio Rank: 24
BTO Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
BTO Martin Ratio Rank: 18

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 8
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 9
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

BTO vs. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund (BTO) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). 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.

	BTO	NLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	-0.15	+1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.56	0.09	+1.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.01	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.44	-0.17	+1.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.59	-0.39	+3.98

BTO vs. NLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BTO Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is higher than the NLR Sharpe Ratio of -0.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BTO and NLR, 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

BTO vs. NLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BTO drawdown since its inception was -72.27%, which is greater than NLR's maximum drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BTO and NLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BTO	NLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-72.27%	-65.05%	-7.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.26%	-36.32%	+21.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.19%	-36.32%	+11.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.80%	-36.32%	-15.48%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.70%	-36.32%	-29.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-36.32%	+36.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-35.67%	+16.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.11%	15.87%	-9.76%

Volatility

BTO vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund (BTO) is 5.06%, while VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a volatility of 9.39%. This indicates that BTO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BTO	NLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.06%	9.39%	-4.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.31%	32.73%	-17.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.54%	43.21%	-22.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.79%	29.90%	+0.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.00%	24.42%	+11.58%

BTO vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BTO has a 2.01% expense ratio, which is higher than NLR's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

BTO vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison

BTO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.39%, more than NLR's 3.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BTO John Hancock Financial Opportunities Fund	6.39%	7.41%	7.28%	8.64%	7.51%	4.72%	7.25%	6.06%	5.94%	3.76%	5.10%	4.75%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	3.02%	2.55%	0.76%	4.54%	2.02%	1.99%	2.23%	2.21%	3.91%	4.86%	3.62%	3.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BTO and NLR in my portfolio?

BTO and NLR have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BTO or NLR?

NLR has higher volatility (9.39%) compared to BTO (5.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BTO dropped -72.27% vs NLR's -65.05%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BTO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.07 vs -0.15), 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.