NLR vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. NLR is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, NLR returned 35.11%/yr vs 10.12%/yr for FRNW. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NLR charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

NLR vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NLR achieves a 6.14% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 34.11% return.

NLR

• 1D: -4.59%
• 1M: -8.11%
• YTD: 6.14%
• 6M: 1.51%
• 1Y: 36.84%
• 3Y*: 35.11%
• 5Y*: 21.94%
• 10Y*: 13.66%

FRNW

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 7.89%
• YTD: 34.11%
• 6M: 34.18%
• 1Y: 86.03%
• 3Y*: 10.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NLR vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	6.14%	56.50%	14.26%	36.67%	2.29%	1.72%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	34.11%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between NLR and FRNW is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.54

The correlation between NLR and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

NLR vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NLR	FRNW
Energy	46.0%	21.0%
Utilities	37.4%	43.3%
Industrials	15.1%	30.1%
Technology	1.5%	5.5%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

NLR vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 25
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 24
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 22

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 90
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). 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	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.88	3.39	-2.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	4.06	-2.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.51	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.43	7.47	-6.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.93	23.29	-20.36
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. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NLR Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 3.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NLR and FRNW, 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	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88	3.39	-2.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.57	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.09	+0.09

Drawdowns

NLR vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NLR drawdown since its inception was -65.05%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NLR and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	NLR	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.05%	-59.37%	-5.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.80%	-11.58%	-14.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.48%	-45.27%	+14.79%
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	-19.80%	-3.15%	-16.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-35.72%	-33.33%	-2.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.61%	3.71%	+8.90%

Volatility

NLR vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a higher volatility of 13.18% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 8.16%. This indicates that NLR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NLR	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.18%	8.16%	+5.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.83%	17.79%	+15.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.32%	25.61%	+16.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.24%	28.35%	+0.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.02%	28.35%	-4.33%

NLR vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

NLR has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

NLR vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.40%, more than FRNW's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	2.40%	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 FRNW in my portfolio?

NLR and FRNW have a correlation of 0.60, 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 FRNW?

NLR has higher volatility (13.18%) compared to FRNW (8.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, NLR or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, NLR leads with 35.11% vs 10.12% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 8.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NLR or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, NLR has performed better with a 35.11% return vs 10.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NLR or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.

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

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.40%, compared with 0.94% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between NLR and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for NLR and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 0.88), 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.