NLR vs. GDXJ
NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) and GDXJ (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while GDXJ is a Gold fund tracking the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, NLR returned 12.70%/yr vs 10.40%/yr for GDXJ. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NLR charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for GDXJ.
Performance
NLR vs. GDXJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NLR achieves a -3.82% return, which is significantly higher than GDXJ's -15.56% return. Over the past 10 years, NLR has outperformed GDXJ with an annualized return of 12.70%, while GDXJ has yielded a comparatively lower 10.40% annualized return.
NLR
- 1D
- -2.41%
- 1M
- -8.71%
- YTD
- -3.82%
- 6M
- -7.14%
- 1Y
- 10.28%
- 3Y*
- 30.47%
- 5Y*
- 20.31%
- 10Y*
- 12.70%
GDXJ
- 1D
- -4.46%
- 1M
- -13.92%
- YTD
- -15.56%
- 6M
- -19.24%
- 1Y
- 47.17%
- 3Y*
- 42.35%
- 5Y*
- 17.01%
- 10Y*
- 10.40%
NLR vs. GDXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | -3.82% | 56.50% | 14.26% | 36.67% | 2.29% | 13.63% | 3.49% | 0.20% | 4.94% | 8.25% |
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF | -15.56% | 172.28% | 15.67% | 7.12% | -14.53% | -21.25% | 30.40% | 40.44% | -11.02% | 8.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between NLR and GDXJ is 0.53, 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 | 0.53 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2009 | 0.35 |
The correlation between NLR and GDXJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (10 years) to 0.53 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
NLR vs. GDXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
NLR
GDXJ
Energy
-
Utilities
-
Industrials
-
Technology
-
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Energy
NLR
GDXJ
-
Utilities
NLR
GDXJ
-
Industrials
NLR
GDXJ
-
Technology
NLR
GDXJ
-
Basic Materials
NLR
-
GDXJ
Communication Services
NLR
-
GDXJ
-
Consumer Cyclical
NLR
-
GDXJ
-
Consumer Defensive
NLR
-
GDXJ
-
Financial Services
NLR
-
GDXJ
Healthcare
NLR
-
GDXJ
-
Real Estate
NLR
-
GDXJ
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
NLR vs. GDXJ — Risk / Return Rank
NLR
GDXJ
NLR vs. GDXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ). 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.
| NLR | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.66 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.73 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.19 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.35 | 1.20 | -0.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.74 | 3.10 | -2.36 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NLR vs. GDXJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NLR drawdown since its inception was -65.05%, smaller than the maximum GDXJ drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NLR and GDXJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NLR | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.05% | -88.66% | +23.61% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.72% | -39.47% | +9.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -30.48% | -39.47% | +8.99% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.48% | -48.79% | +18.31% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.35% | -57.77% | +23.42% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -27.33% | -38.49% | +11.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -35.68% | -60.40% | +24.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.94% | 15.27% | -1.33% |
Volatility
NLR vs. GDXJ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) is 13.71%, while VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) has a volatility of 20.59%. This indicates that NLR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NLR | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.71% | 20.59% | -6.88% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 32.79% | 44.56% | -11.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 42.87% | 52.62% | -9.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.65% | 41.76% | -12.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.27% | 44.32% | -20.05% |
NLR vs. GDXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
NLR has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than GDXJ's 0.52% expense ratio.
Dividends
NLR vs. GDXJ - Dividend Comparison
NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.65%, less than GDXJ's 2.76% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF | 2.76% | 2.33% | 2.61% | 0.72% | 0.51% | 1.78% | 1.58% | 0.39% | 0.45% | 0.03% | 4.78% | 0.72% |
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | 2.65% | 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
NLR and GDXJ have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GDXJ has higher volatility (20.59%) compared to NLR (13.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs GDXJ's -88.66%.
On 10-year performance, NLR leads with 12.70% vs 10.40% for GDXJ. On fees, GDXJ is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, NLR has been the lower-risk option at 13.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, NLR has performed better with a 12.70% return vs 10.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GDXJ is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.
GDXJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.76%, compared with 2.65% for NLR.
NLR is categorized as Uranium, while GDXJ is Gold. NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while GDXJ tracks MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for NLR and 0.52% for GDXJ.
GDXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.24), 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.
Find the right allocation for NLR and GDXJ
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