EMLP vs. NUKZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EMLP (First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund) and NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMLP is a MLPs fund actively managed by First Trust, while NUKZ is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index. EMLP is actively managed, while NUKZ is passively managed. Over the past year, EMLP returned 19.70% vs 28.77% for NUKZ. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMLP charges 0.96%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for NUKZ.

Performance

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) and Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLP achieves a 15.76% return, which is significantly higher than NUKZ's 7.57% return.

EMLP

• 1D: 0.79%
• 1M: -1.31%
• YTD: 15.76%
• 6M: 15.73%
• 1Y: 19.70%
• 3Y*: 21.55%
• 5Y*: 15.13%
• 10Y*: 10.37%

NUKZ

• 1D: 1.59%
• 1M: -4.67%
• YTD: 7.57%
• 6M: 4.81%
• 1Y: 28.77%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMLP First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund	15.76%	9.67%	36.80%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	7.57%	56.57%	60.11%

Correlation

The correlation between EMLP and NUKZ is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2024	0.38

Over the past year, the correlation between EMLP and NUKZ has dropped to 0.17 - well below their long-term average of 0.38, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMLP	NUKZ
Energy	48.1%	12.9%
Utilities	47.4%	35.8%
Industrials	3.9%	45.9%
Basic Materials	0.6%	4.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

EMLP vs. NUKZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMLP

EMLP Risk / Return Rank: 74
EMLP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
EMLP Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
EMLP Omega Ratio Rank: 66
EMLP Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMLP Martin Ratio Rank: 75

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 31
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) and Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ). 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.

	EMLP	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	0.92	+1.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	1.43	+1.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.17	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	1.70	+2.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.36	4.11	+8.25

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMLP Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is higher than the NUKZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLP and NUKZ, 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

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLP drawdown since its inception was -43.61%, which is greater than NUKZ's maximum drawdown of -33.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLP and NUKZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMLP	NUKZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.61%	-33.03%	-10.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.94%	-16.51%	+11.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.47%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.59%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.66%	-10.39%	+7.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.75%	-6.06%	+0.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.61%	6.80%	-5.19%

Volatility

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) is 3.79%, while Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a volatility of 11.24%. This indicates that EMLP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NUKZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMLP	NUKZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.79%	11.24%	-7.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.86%	23.34%	-15.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.87%	30.46%	-20.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.53%	32.94%	-18.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	32.94%	-15.25%

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMLP has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than NUKZ's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMLP vs. NUKZ - Dividend Comparison

EMLP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.76%, more than NUKZ's 0.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMLP First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund	2.76%	3.18%	3.19%	3.92%	3.15%	3.29%	4.70%	3.71%	4.71%	3.80%	3.62%	4.63%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.85%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMLP and NUKZ in my portfolio?

EMLP and NUKZ have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMLP or NUKZ?

NUKZ has higher volatility (11.24%) compared to EMLP (3.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMLP dropped -43.61% vs NUKZ's -33.03%.

Which ETF is better, EMLP or NUKZ?

On 1-year performance, NUKZ leads with 28.77% vs 19.70% for EMLP. On fees, NUKZ is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, EMLP has been the lower-risk option at 3.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMLP or NUKZ?

Over the 1-year period, NUKZ has performed better with a 28.77% return vs 19.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMLP or NUKZ?

NUKZ is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for EMLP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMLP or NUKZ?

EMLP has the higher dividend yield at 2.76%, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

What is the main difference between EMLP and NUKZ?

EMLP is categorized as MLPs, while NUKZ is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for EMLP and 0.85% for NUKZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMLP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 0.92), 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.