CBON vs. NLR
CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBON is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index, while NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CBON returned 3.09%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for NLR. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBON charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.
Performance
CBON vs. NLR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 5.07% return, which is significantly higher than NLR's -15.72% return. Over the past 10 years, CBON has underperformed NLR with an annualized return of 3.09%, while NLR has yielded a comparatively higher 10.63% annualized return.
CBON
- 1D
- -0.38%
- 1M
- -0.38%
- 6M
- 4.63%
- YTD
- 5.07%
- 1Y
- 8.36%
- 3Y*
- 4.83%
- 5Y*
- 2.13%
- 10Y*
- 3.09%
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%
CBON vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 5.07% | 5.46% | 1.85% | 2.92% | -7.99% | 5.93% | 12.01% | 2.67% | 1.88% | 6.96% |
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 CBON and NLR is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.13 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2014 | 0.13 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CBON vs. NLR — Risk / Return Rank
CBON
NLR
CBON vs. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) 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.
| CBON | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.52 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.01 | +0.45 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.27 | -0.17 | +6.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 23.93 | -0.39 | +24.33 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CBON vs. NLR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, smaller than the maximum NLR drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and NLR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBON | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.13% | -65.05% | +50.92% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.34% | -36.32% | +34.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.56% | -36.32% | +31.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.13% | -36.32% | +22.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.13% | -36.32% | +22.19% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.38% | -36.32% | +35.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.96% | -35.67% | +31.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.35% | 15.87% | -15.52% |
Volatility
CBON vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) is 1.04%, while VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a volatility of 9.39%. This indicates that CBON 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBON | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.04% | 9.39% | -8.35% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.72% | 32.73% | -30.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.54% | 43.21% | -39.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.90% | 29.90% | -25.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.55% | 24.42% | -18.87% |
CBON vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than NLR's 0.56% expense ratio.
Dividends
CBON vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison
CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, less than NLR's 3.02% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF | 1.51% | 1.66% | 2.15% | 3.01% | 2.70% | 3.05% | 2.87% | 3.87% | 3.39% | 3.33% | 3.25% | 2.78% |
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
CBON and NLR have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NLR has higher volatility (9.39%) compared to CBON (1.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBON dropped -14.13% vs NLR's -65.05%.
On 10-year performance, NLR leads with 10.63% vs 3.09% for CBON. On fees, CBON is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 1.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, NLR has performed better with a 10.63% return vs 3.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CBON is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.
NLR has the higher dividend yield at 3.02%, compared with 1.51% for CBON.
CBON is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while NLR is Uranium. CBON tracks ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index, while NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CBON and 0.56% for NLR.
CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 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.
Find the right allocation for CBON and NLR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer