HEAL vs. URA

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

HEAL (Global X HealthTech ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HEAL is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Global X HealthTech Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HEAL returned -12.46%/yr vs 20.29%/yr for URA. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HEAL charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

HEAL vs. URA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HEAL achieves a -3.82% return, which is significantly lower than URA's -2.76% return.

HEAL

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: 8.66%
• 6M: -7.84%
• YTD: -3.82%
• 1Y: -10.83%
• 3Y*: -7.80%
• 5Y*: -12.46%
• 10Y*: —

URA

• 1D: 2.04%
• 1M: -8.72%
• 6M: -18.16%
• YTD: -2.76%
• 1Y: 11.71%
• 3Y*: 29.79%
• 5Y*: 20.29%
• 10Y*: 14.83%

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

HEAL vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	-3.82%	-0.62%	-2.87%	-12.61%	-29.99%	-14.21%	16.89%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	-2.76%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	57.57%	31.24%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL and URA is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2020	0.40

The correlation between HEAL and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (1 year) to 0.42 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HEAL vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HEAL	URA
Healthcare	95.2%	-
Technology	4.2%	0.9%
Basic Materials	-	4.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	64.2%
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	22.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	7.4%

Return for Risk

HEAL vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

HEAL

HEAL Risk / Return Rank: 6
HEAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
HEAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
HEAL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
HEAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
HEAL Martin Ratio Rank: 6

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 14
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 15
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

HEAL vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) 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.

	HEAL	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.48	0.23	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.56	0.70	-1.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.08	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.35	0.34	-0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.66	0.72	-1.39

HEAL vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEAL Sharpe Ratio is -0.48, which is lower than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL 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.

Drawdowns

HEAL vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL drawdown since its inception was -65.76%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEAL	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.76%	-93.54%	+27.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.71%	-34.12%	+3.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.78%	-37.81%	+2.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.14%	-37.90%	-21.24%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-58.48%	-52.85%	-5.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.34%	-74.81%	+31.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.34%	16.25%	+0.09%

Volatility

HEAL vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) is 7.35%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 11.22%. This indicates that HEAL 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.

Volatility by Period

	HEAL	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.35%	11.22%	-3.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.15%	38.95%	-21.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.67%	51.54%	-28.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.59%	44.00%	-17.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.29%	37.98%	-11.69%

HEAL vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

HEAL has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

HEAL vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

HEAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.26%, less than URA's 5.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	0.26%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	5.02%	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

Can I hold both HEAL and URA in my portfolio?

HEAL and URA have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HEAL or URA?

URA has higher volatility (11.22%) compared to HEAL (7.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HEAL dropped -65.76% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, HEAL or URA?

On 5-year performance, URA leads with 20.29% vs -12.46% for HEAL. On fees, HEAL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, HEAL has been the lower-risk option at 7.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HEAL or URA?

Over the 5-year period, URA has performed better with a 20.29% return vs -12.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HEAL or URA?

HEAL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HEAL or URA?

URA has the higher dividend yield at 5.02%, compared with 0.26% for HEAL.

What is the main difference between HEAL and URA?

HEAL is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while URA is Uranium. HEAL tracks Global X HealthTech Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for HEAL and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

URA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.23 vs -0.48), 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.