EMET vs. URA
EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMET is a Copper fund tracking the MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMET returned 13.48%/yr vs 25.57%/yr for URA. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EMET charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.
Performance
EMET vs. URA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMET achieves a 4.91% return, which is significantly higher than URA's -8.57% return.
EMET
- 1D
- -0.78%
- 1M
- -2.10%
- 6M
- -9.46%
- YTD
- 4.91%
- 1Y
- 64.11%
- 3Y*
- 13.48%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 4.05%
URA
- 1D
- -1.64%
- 1M
- -9.62%
- 6M
- -28.95%
- YTD
- -8.57%
- 1Y
- 7.10%
- 3Y*
- 25.57%
- 5Y*
- 18.90%
- 10Y*
- 14.85%
- ALL TIME*
- -3.36%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $206.80K | $212.67K | $453.71K | |
| $122.45M | $118.35M | $170.14M |
EMET vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF | 4.91% | 81.22% | -12.81% | -12.28% | -17.15% | 0.11% |
URA Global X Uranium ETF | -8.57% | 67.18% | -0.58% | 46.25% | -11.32% | -17.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMET and URA is 0.62, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.62 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.53 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2021 | 0.57 |
The correlation between EMET and URA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
EMET vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank
EMET
URA
EMET vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) 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.
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.
| EMET | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.57 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.06 | +0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.53 | 0.10 | +2.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.21 | 0.22 | +5.99 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMET vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMET drawdown since its inception was -53.05%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMET and URA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMET | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.05% | -93.54% | +40.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.58% | -39.30% | +13.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -40.50% | -39.30% | -1.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -39.30% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -61.45% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -20.49% | -55.66% | +35.17% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.56% | -74.75% | +50.19% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.39% | 18.11% | -7.72% |
Volatility
EMET vs. URA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) is 11.74%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 13.54%. This indicates that EMET 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
| EMET | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.74% | 13.54% | -1.80% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 33.95% | 38.35% | -4.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.19% | 52.24% | -13.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.48% | 44.10% | -10.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.48% | 38.10% | -4.62% |
EMET vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMET has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMET vs. URA - Dividend Comparison
EMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, less than URA's 5.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF | 1.76% | 1.84% | 1.89% | 2.02% | 2.56% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 5.33% | 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
EMET and URA have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
URA has higher volatility (13.54%) compared to EMET (11.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMET dropped -53.05% vs URA's -93.54%.
On 3-year performance, URA leads with 25.57% vs 13.48% for EMET. On fees, EMET is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, EMET has been the lower-risk option at 11.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, URA has performed better with a 25.57% return vs 13.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMET is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.
URA has the higher dividend yield at 5.33%, compared with 1.76% for EMET.
EMET is categorized as Copper, while URA is Uranium. EMET tracks MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for EMET and 0.69% for URA.
EMET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs 0.08), 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 EMET 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