ION vs. NLR

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ION returned 7.83%/yr vs 23.46%/yr for NLR. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.

Performance

ION vs. NLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) 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, ION achieves a -12.05% return, which is significantly higher than NLR's -15.40% return.

ION

• 1D: -2.66%
• 1M: -19.28%
• 6M: -23.00%
• YTD: -12.05%
• 1Y: 45.93%
• 3Y*: 7.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.98%

NLR

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -17.23%
• 6M: -29.26%
• YTD: -15.40%
• 1Y: -8.06%
• 3Y*: 23.46%
• 5Y*: 17.81%
• 10Y*: 10.66%
• ALL TIME*: 3.20%

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

ION vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	-12.05%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-15.40%	56.50%	14.26%	36.67%	-1.73%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and NLR is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.47

ION vs. NLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	NLR
Financial Services	14.4%	-
Basic Materials	14.1%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	-
Energy	2.7%	48.2%
Real Estate	2.4%	-
Healthcare	2.2%	-
Industrials	1.8%	21.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Technology	-	1.6%
Utilities	-	26.2%

Return for Risk

ION vs. NLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 39
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 40
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 37

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 8
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 9
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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.

ION vs. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) 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.

	ION	NLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	-0.19	+1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.65	0.03	+1.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.00	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	-0.22	+1.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.26	-0.50	+4.76

ION vs. NLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is higher than the NLR Sharpe Ratio of -0.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION 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

ION vs. NLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, smaller than the maximum NLR drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and NLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	NLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-65.05%	+12.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.66%	-36.61%	+2.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.11%	-36.61%	-8.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.61%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.66%	-36.08%	+2.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.68%	-35.67%	+11.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.81%	16.20%	-5.39%

Volatility

ION vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison

Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) have volatilities of 9.58% and 9.51%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ION	NLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.58%	9.51%	+0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.29%	32.62%	-1.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.13%	43.18%	-3.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.64%	29.88%	+1.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.64%	24.43%	+7.21%

ION vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than NLR's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, less than NLR's 3.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.69%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	3.01%	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 ION and NLR in my portfolio?

ION and NLR have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ION or NLR?

ION has higher volatility (9.58%) compared to NLR (9.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs NLR's -65.05%.

Which ETF is better, ION or NLR?

On 3-year performance, NLR leads with 23.46% vs 7.83% for ION. On fees, NLR is cheaper at 0.56% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or NLR?

Over the 3-year period, NLR has performed better with a 23.46% return vs 7.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or NLR?

NLR is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for ION.

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

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 1.69% for ION.

What is the main difference between ION and NLR?

ION is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while NLR is Uranium. ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.56% for NLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs -0.19), 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.