COAL vs. URNM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

COAL (Range Global Coal Index ETF) and URNM (Sprott Uranium Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - COAL is a Energy Equities fund tracking the VettaFi Global Coal Index, while URNM is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the VettaFi Global Uranium Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, COAL returned 69.32% vs 49.43% for URNM. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

COAL vs. URNM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Range Global Coal Index ETF (COAL) 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, COAL achieves a 24.29% return, which is significantly higher than URNM's 11.22% return.

COAL

• 1D: 2.07%
• 1M: 8.50%
• YTD: 24.29%
• 6M: 26.74%
• 1Y: 69.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

URNM

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: -5.82%
• YTD: 11.22%
• 6M: 4.99%
• 1Y: 49.43%
• 3Y*: 26.12%
• 5Y*: 15.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

COAL vs. URNM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
COAL Range Global Coal Index ETF	24.29%	12.65%	-16.01%
URNM Sprott Uranium Miners ETF	11.22%	40.78%	-22.98%

Correlation

The correlation between COAL and URNM is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.40

COAL vs. URNM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	COAL	URNM
Energy	50.3%	97.4%
Basic Materials	43.2%	2.6%
Industrials	6.6%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

COAL vs. URNM — Risk / Return Rank

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

COAL

COAL Risk / Return Rank: 71
COAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
COAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
COAL Omega Ratio Rank: 64
COAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
COAL Martin Ratio Rank: 61

URNM

URNM Risk / Return Rank: 29
URNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
URNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
URNM Omega Ratio Rank: 28
URNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
URNM Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

COAL vs. URNM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Range Global Coal Index ETF (COAL) 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.

	COAL	URNM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	0.97	+1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	1.60	+1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.19	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	1.55	+2.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.66	3.35	+7.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

COAL vs. URNM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is higher than the URNM Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COAL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	COAL	URNM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37	0.97	+1.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.32	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	0.67	-0.41

Drawdowns

COAL vs. URNM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COAL drawdown since its inception was -42.29%, smaller than the maximum URNM drawdown of -50.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COAL and URNM.

Drawdown Indicators

	COAL	URNM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.29%	-50.78%	+8.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.42%	-32.04%	+16.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-50.78%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-50.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.18%	-27.31%	+27.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.12%	-18.03%	+3.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.52%	14.81%	-8.29%

Volatility

COAL vs. URNM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Range Global Coal Index ETF (COAL) is 10.63%, while Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (URNM) has a volatility of 16.06%. This indicates that COAL 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

	COAL	URNM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.63%	16.06%	-5.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.30%	40.27%	-18.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.45%	51.44%	-21.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.61%	48.29%	-20.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.61%	46.89%	-19.28%

COAL vs. URNM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both COAL and URNM have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

COAL vs. URNM - Dividend Comparison

COAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.12%, less than URNM's 2.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
COAL Range Global Coal Index ETF	2.12%	2.63%	1.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URNM Sprott Uranium Miners ETF	2.86%	3.18%	3.18%	3.63%	0.00%	6.70%	2.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COAL and URNM in my portfolio?

COAL and URNM have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, COAL or URNM?

URNM has higher volatility (16.06%) compared to COAL (10.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COAL dropped -42.29% vs URNM's -50.78%.

Which ETF is better, COAL or URNM?

On 1-year performance, COAL leads with 69.32% vs 49.43% for URNM. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, COAL has been the lower-risk option at 10.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, COAL or URNM?

Over the 1-year period, COAL has performed better with a 69.32% return vs 49.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, COAL or URNM?

COAL and URNM have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

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

URNM has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 2.12% for COAL.

What is the main difference between COAL and URNM?

COAL is categorized as Energy Equities, while URNM is Commodity Producers Equities. COAL tracks VettaFi Global Coal Index, while URNM tracks VettaFi Global Uranium Miners Index. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Sprott.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

COAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 0.97), 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.