ICOP vs. NLR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ICOP (iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICOP is a Copper fund tracking the STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, while NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ICOP returned 30.39%/yr vs 31.54%/yr for NLR. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICOP charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.

Performance

ICOP vs. NLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICOP achieves a 13.96% return, which is significantly higher than NLR's -1.45% return.

ICOP

• 1D: -5.31%
• 1M: -3.15%
• YTD: 13.96%
• 6M: 12.44%
• 1Y: 82.41%
• 3Y*: 30.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NLR

• 1D: -1.73%
• 1M: -6.46%
• YTD: -1.45%
• 6M: -4.74%
• 1Y: 15.99%
• 3Y*: 31.54%
• 5Y*: 21.03%
• 10Y*: 12.97%

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

ICOP vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF	13.96%	78.01%	1.10%	8.08%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-1.45%	56.50%	14.26%	27.11%

Correlation

The correlation between ICOP and NLR is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2023	0.52

The correlation between ICOP and NLR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICOP vs. NLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICOP	NLR
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	45.3%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	15.1%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	1.6%
Utilities	-	38.1%

Return for Risk

ICOP vs. NLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICOP

ICOP Risk / Return Rank: 61
ICOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
ICOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
ICOP Omega Ratio Rank: 56
ICOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
ICOP Martin Ratio Rank: 64

NLR

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

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.

ICOP vs. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) 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.

	ICOP	NLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	0.38	+1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.50	0.82	+1.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.09	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.17	0.54	+2.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.16	1.16	+10.00

ICOP vs. NLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICOP Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is higher than the NLR Sharpe Ratio of 0.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICOP 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.

Drawdowns

ICOP vs. NLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICOP drawdown since its inception was -38.67%, smaller than the maximum NLR drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICOP and NLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICOP	NLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.67%	-65.05%	+26.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.13%	-29.72%	+3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-38.67%	-30.48%	-8.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.41%	-25.53%	+12.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.61%	-35.68%	+24.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.41%	13.83%	-6.42%

Volatility

ICOP vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison

iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) has a higher volatility of 16.27% compared to VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) at 13.59%. This indicates that ICOP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICOP	NLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.27%	13.59%	+2.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.00%	32.95%	+2.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.67%	42.81%	-3.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.44%	29.63%	+4.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.44%	24.26%	+10.18%

ICOP vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ICOP vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison

ICOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.78%, less than NLR's 2.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF	1.78%	2.08%	1.87%	2.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	2.59%	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

Can I hold both ICOP and NLR in my portfolio?

ICOP and NLR have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ICOP or NLR?

ICOP has higher volatility (16.27%) compared to NLR (13.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICOP dropped -38.67% vs NLR's -65.05%.

Which ETF is better, ICOP or NLR?

On 3-year performance, NLR leads with 31.54% vs 30.39% for ICOP. On fees, ICOP is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, NLR has been the lower-risk option at 13.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICOP or NLR?

Over the 3-year period, NLR has performed better with a 31.54% return vs 30.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICOP or NLR?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ICOP or NLR?

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.59%, compared with 1.78% for ICOP.

What is the main difference between ICOP and NLR?

ICOP is categorized as Copper, while NLR is Uranium. ICOP tracks STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, 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 ICOP and 0.56% for NLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 0.38), 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.