PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EFA vs. URA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EFA vs. URA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EFA having a 7.13% return and URA slightly higher at 7.47%. Over the past 10 years, EFA has underperformed URA with an annualized return of 9.28%, while URA has yielded a comparatively higher 15.57% annualized return.


EFA

1D
0.61%
1M
-1.04%
YTD
7.13%
6M
9.67%
1Y
18.74%
3Y*
15.87%
5Y*
8.03%
10Y*
9.28%

URA

1D
1.35%
1M
-16.78%
YTD
7.47%
6M
0.63%
1Y
43.02%
3Y*
33.80%
5Y*
19.23%
10Y*
15.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFA vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EFA
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF
7.13%31.55%3.49%18.36%-14.39%11.45%7.60%22.04%-13.82%25.07%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
7.47%67.18%-0.58%46.25%-11.32%57.57%41.33%-3.54%-22.11%19.36%

Correlation

The correlation between EFA and URA is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.44

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010

0.56

The correlation between EFA and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (1 year) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EFA vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EFA
URA

Financial Services

24.6%

-

Industrials

19.9%
20.9%

Healthcare

10.6%

-

Technology

10.4%
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

7.6%

-

Consumer Defensive

6.7%

-

Basic Materials

5.9%
5.0%

Communication Services

4.5%

-

Energy

4.0%
58.2%

Utilities

4.0%
9.2%

Real Estate

1.9%

-

Financial Services

EFA
24.6%
URA

-

Industrials

EFA
19.9%
URA
20.9%

Healthcare

EFA
10.6%
URA

-

Technology

EFA
10.4%
URA
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EFA
7.6%
URA

-

Consumer Defensive

EFA
6.7%
URA

-

Basic Materials

EFA
5.9%
URA
5.0%

Communication Services

EFA
4.5%
URA

-

Energy

EFA
4.0%
URA
58.2%

Utilities

EFA
4.0%
URA
9.2%

Real Estate

EFA
1.9%
URA

-

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

EFA vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFA
EFA Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
EFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFA Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
EFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank

URA
URA Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EFA vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) 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.


EFAURADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.17

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.65

1.52

+0.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.15

3.16

+2.99

EFA vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFA 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EFAURADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.23

0.85

+0.39

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.49

0.44

+0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

0.41

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

-0.07

+0.37

Drawdowns

EFA vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFA drawdown since its inception was -61.04%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFA and URA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EFAURADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-61.04%

-93.54%

+32.50%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.42%

-28.43%

+17.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.05%

-37.81%

+23.76%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.53%

-37.90%

+8.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.19%

-61.45%

+27.26%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.63%

-47.89%

+45.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.93%

-74.99%

+63.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.05%

13.66%

-10.61%

Volatility

EFA vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) is 4.54%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 16.85%. This indicates that EFA 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EFAURADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.54%

16.85%

-12.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.82%

39.19%

-26.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.31%

51.23%

-35.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.52%

43.83%

-27.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.28%

37.84%

-20.56%

EFA vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFA has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.


Dividends

EFA vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

EFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.16%, less than URA's 4.54% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFA
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF
3.16%3.38%3.24%2.98%2.69%3.33%2.13%3.10%3.39%2.57%3.07%2.76%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
4.54%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


EFA and URA have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

URA has higher volatility (16.85%) compared to EFA (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFA dropped -61.04% vs URA's -93.54%.

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 15.57% vs 9.28% for EFA. On fees, EFA is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, EFA has been the lower-risk option at 4.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, URA has performed better with a 15.57% return vs 9.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EFA is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.54%, compared with 3.16% for EFA.

EFA is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. EFA tracks MSCI EAFE Index (Net), while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for EFA and 0.69% for URA.

EFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs 0.85), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EFA and URA

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