NLR vs. ION

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, NLR returned 29.88%/yr vs 17.31%/yr for ION. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NLR charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

NLR vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NLR achieves a -1.81% return, which is significantly lower than ION's 13.12% return.

NLR

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -9.40%
• YTD: -1.81%
• 6M: -3.70%
• 1Y: 19.00%
• 3Y*: 29.88%
• 5Y*: 19.78%
• 10Y*: 12.80%

ION

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: -8.49%
• YTD: 13.12%
• 6M: 23.38%
• 1Y: 112.30%
• 3Y*: 17.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NLR vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-1.81%	56.50%	14.26%	36.67%	-1.73%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	13.12%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between NLR and ION is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
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

NLR vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NLR	ION
Energy	45.3%	2.3%
Utilities	38.1%	-
Industrials	15.1%	1.7%
Technology	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	13.7%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	13.0%
Healthcare	-	1.7%
Real Estate	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

NLR vs. ION — Risk / Return Rank

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

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 18
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 18
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 17

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 84
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.44	2.81	-2.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	3.09	-2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.40	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.63	4.74	-4.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.41	15.01	-13.60

NLR vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NLR Sharpe Ratio is 0.44, which is lower than the ION Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NLR and ION, 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

NLR vs. ION - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	NLR	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.05%	-52.08%	-12.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.72%	-23.30%	-6.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.48%	-46.47%	+15.99%
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	-25.81%	-14.68%	-11.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-35.70%	-23.64%	-12.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.33%	7.34%	+5.99%

Volatility

NLR vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) is 13.73%, while Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a volatility of 15.42%. This indicates that NLR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ION based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NLR	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.73%	15.42%	-1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.75%	31.74%	+2.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.85%	39.38%	+3.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.56%	31.51%	-1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.22%	31.51%	-7.29%

NLR vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NLR vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.60%, more than ION's 1.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.41%	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	2.60%	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 ION in my portfolio?

NLR and ION have a correlation of 0.48, 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 ION?

ION has higher volatility (15.42%) compared to NLR (13.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, NLR or ION?

On 3-year performance, NLR leads with 29.88% vs 17.31% for ION. On fees, NLR is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, NLR has been the lower-risk option at 13.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NLR or ION?

Over the 3-year period, NLR has performed better with a 29.88% return vs 17.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NLR or ION?

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

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

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 1.41% for ION.

What is the main difference between NLR and ION?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 0.44), 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.