NLR vs. CCJ

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) is Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while CCJ (Cameco Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, NLR returned 12.72%/yr vs 25.85%/yr for CCJ. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

NLR vs. CCJ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NLR achieves a -0.79% return, which is significantly lower than CCJ's 15.25% return. Over the past 10 years, NLR has underperformed CCJ with an annualized return of 12.72%, while CCJ has yielded a comparatively higher 25.85% annualized return.

NLR

• 1D: 0.91%
• 1M: -12.54%
• YTD: -0.79%
• 6M: -6.08%
• 1Y: 26.72%
• 3Y*: 31.16%
• 5Y*: 20.16%
• 10Y*: 12.72%

CCJ

• 1D: 1.93%
• 1M: -9.69%
• YTD: 15.25%
• 6M: 16.00%
• 1Y: 74.85%
• 3Y*: 51.07%
• 5Y*: 37.97%
• 10Y*: 25.85%

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

NLR vs. CCJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-0.79%	56.50%	14.26%	36.67%	2.29%	13.63%	3.49%	0.20%	4.94%	8.25%
CCJ Cameco Corporation	15.25%	78.38%	19.47%	90.49%	4.35%	63.19%	51.47%	-21.08%	23.58%	-8.20%

Correlation

The correlation between NLR and CCJ is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2007	0.60

Over the past year, NLR and CCJ have become more correlated (0.87) than their long-term average of 0.60, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

NLR vs. CCJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 22
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 21
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 19

CCJ

CCJ Risk / Return Rank: 79
CCJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
CCJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
CCJ Omega Ratio Rank: 75
CCJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
CCJ Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

NLR vs. CCJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and Cameco Corporation (CCJ). 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.

	NLR	CCJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	1.35	-0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.13	2.11	-0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.25	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.04	2.93	-1.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.08	6.51	-4.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NLR vs. CCJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NLR Sharpe Ratio is 0.63, which is lower than the CCJ Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NLR and CCJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NLR	CCJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63	1.35	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	0.77	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.56	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	0.23	-0.07

Drawdowns

NLR vs. CCJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NLR drawdown since its inception was -65.05%, smaller than the maximum CCJ drawdown of -87.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NLR and CCJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	NLR	CCJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.05%	-87.53%	+22.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.80%	-25.69%	-0.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.48%	-40.01%	+9.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.48%	-40.01%	+9.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.35%	-57.22%	+22.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.03%	-21.37%	-3.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-35.71%	-46.09%	+10.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.87%	11.54%	+1.33%

Volatility

NLR vs. CCJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) is 13.36%, while Cameco Corporation (CCJ) has a volatility of 15.98%. This indicates that NLR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CCJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NLR	CCJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.36%	15.98%	-2.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.24%	39.04%	-5.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.96%	55.87%	-12.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.43%	49.87%	-20.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.14%	46.69%	-22.55%

Dividends

NLR vs. CCJ - Dividend Comparison

NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.57%, more than CCJ's 0.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCJ Cameco Corporation	0.16%	0.19%	0.22%	0.20%	0.39%	0.29%	0.46%	0.67%	0.53%	4.33%	3.82%	3.24%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	2.57%	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 NLR and CCJ in my portfolio?

NLR and CCJ have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NLR or CCJ?

CCJ has higher volatility (15.98%) compared to NLR (13.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs CCJ's -87.53%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 0.63), 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.