PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IBAT vs. NLR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IBAT vs. NLR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 63.73% vs -2.28% for NLR. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.

Performance

IBAT vs. NLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than NLR's -13.99% return.

IBAT

1D
0.04%
1M
-12.41%
6M
17.70%
YTD
32.65%
1Y
63.73%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
19.39%

NLR

1D
-1.41%
1M
-7.05%
6M
-28.16%
YTD
-13.99%
1Y
-2.28%
3Y*
23.67%
5Y*
18.29%
10Y*
11.00%
ALL TIME*
3.29%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IBAT

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF
$1.10M$1.47M$2.33M

NLR

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF
$43.05M$48.38M$60.74M

IBAT vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		32.65%32.09%-13.29%
NLR
VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF		-13.99%56.50%8.89%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and NLR is 0.64, 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.

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024

0.55

The correlation between IBAT and NLR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. NLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IBAT
NLR

Industrials

44.1%
12.6%

Basic Materials

32.2%
2.3%

Technology

21.1%
1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

2.2%

-

Energy

1.8%
49.8%

Utilities

0.3%
36.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

IBAT
44.1%
NLR
12.6%

Basic Materials

IBAT
32.2%
NLR
2.3%

Technology

IBAT
21.1%
NLR
1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IBAT
2.2%
NLR

-

Energy

IBAT
1.8%
NLR
49.8%

Utilities

IBAT
0.3%
NLR
36.0%

Communication Services

IBAT

-

NLR

-

Consumer Defensive

IBAT

-

NLR

-

Financial Services

IBAT

-

NLR

-

Healthcare

IBAT

-

NLR

-

Real Estate

IBAT

-

NLR

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF

Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. HYDRIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. CRAK
Often compared with NLR:
NLR vs. URANLR vs. NUKZNLR vs. URNMNLR vs. OKLONLR vs. GRIDNLR vs. URANNLR vs. SMH

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. NLR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
NLR
NLR Risk / Return Rank: 1010
Overall Rank
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 99
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IBAT vs. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). 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.

IBATNLRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.98
-0.10

+2.08

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.45
0.16

+2.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.02

+0.31

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.42

-0.12

+2.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.73

-0.26

+8.98

IBAT vs. NLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is higher than the NLR Sharpe Ratio of -0.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and NLR, 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...

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. NLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum NLR drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and NLR.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IBATNLRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.26%

-65.05%

+36.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.85%

-37.52%

+11.67%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-37.52%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-37.52%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-37.52%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-20.73%

-35.01%

+14.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.03%

-35.67%

+27.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.15%

17.42%

-10.27%

Volatility

IBAT vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) is 12.10%, while VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a volatility of 12.90%. This indicates that IBAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IBATNLRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.10%

12.90%

-0.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

26.99%

32.42%

-5.43%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.59%

43.80%

-12.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.08%

30.13%

-4.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.08%

24.58%

+1.50%

IBAT vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than NLR's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.80%, less than NLR's 2.96% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		0.80%1.15%1.37%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
NLR
VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF		2.96%2.55%0.76%4.54%2.02%1.99%2.23%2.21%3.91%4.86%3.62%3.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

IBAT and NLR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NLR has higher volatility (12.90%) compared to IBAT (12.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs NLR's -65.05%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 63.73% vs -2.28% for NLR. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 12.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 63.73% return vs -2.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 0.80% for IBAT.

IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while NLR is Uranium. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.56% for NLR.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs -0.10), 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 IBAT and NLR

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