PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
NLR vs. IBAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

NLR vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - NLR tracks the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NLR returned 36.84% vs 124.45% for IBAT. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NLR charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

NLR vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NLR achieves a 6.14% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 64.52% 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%

IBAT

1D
-1.22%
1M
10.03%
YTD
64.52%
6M
57.93%
1Y
124.45%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NLR vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
NLR
VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF		6.14%56.50%9.05%
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		64.52%32.09%-13.19%

Correlation

The correlation between NLR and IBAT is 0.58, 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

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024

0.54

The correlation between NLR and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

NLR vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
NLR
IBAT

Energy

46.0%
3.4%

Utilities

37.4%
0.4%

Industrials

15.1%
41.6%

Technology

1.5%
23.4%

Basic Materials

-

29.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

1.9%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Energy

NLR
46.0%
IBAT
3.4%

Utilities

NLR
37.4%
IBAT
0.4%

Industrials

NLR
15.1%
IBAT
41.6%

Technology

NLR
1.5%
IBAT
23.4%

Basic Materials

NLR

-

IBAT
29.0%

Communication Services

NLR

-

IBAT

-

Consumer Cyclical

NLR

-

IBAT
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

NLR

-

IBAT

-

Financial Services

NLR

-

IBAT

-

Healthcare

NLR

-

IBAT

-

Real Estate

NLR

-

IBAT

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

Often compared with NLR:
NLR vs. URANLR vs. NUKZNLR vs. URNMNLR vs. OKLONLR vs. GRIDNLR vs. URANNLR vs. SMH
Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. HYDR

Return for Risk

NLR vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
NLR
NLR Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
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. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). 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.

NLRIBATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.88
4.75

-3.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.43
5.12

-3.69

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.68

-0.51

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.43

10.21

-8.78

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.93

26.91

-23.98

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. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NLR Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NLR and IBAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

NLRIBATDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.88

4.75

-3.88

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

1.41

-1.24

Drawdowns

NLR vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NLR drawdown since its inception was -65.05%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NLR and IBAT.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

NLRIBATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-65.05%

-28.26%

-36.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.80%

-12.25%

-13.55%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.48%

—

—

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%

-1.25%

-18.55%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-35.72%

-7.74%

-27.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

12.61%

4.64%

+7.97%

Volatility

NLR vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a higher volatility of 13.18% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 10.25%. This indicates that NLR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

NLRIBATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.18%

10.25%

+2.93%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.83%

20.28%

+12.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.32%

26.35%

+15.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.24%

23.83%

+5.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.02%

23.83%

+0.19%

NLR vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

NLR has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

NLR vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.40%, more than IBAT's 0.70% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		0.70%1.15%1.37%0.00%0.00%0.00%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

NLR and IBAT have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NLR has higher volatility (13.18%) compared to IBAT (10.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 36.84% for NLR. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 10.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 36.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.40%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for NLR and 0.47% for IBAT.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for NLR and IBAT

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