NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

NUCG.L (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF) is Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the MarketVector Global Uranium and Nuclear Energy Infrastructure, while 1810.HK (Xiaomi Corp) is a stock. Over the past 3 years, NUCG.L returned 36.37%/yr vs 33.78%/yr for 1810.HK. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L) and Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

NUCG.L is traded in USD, while 1810.HK is traded in HKD. To make them comparable, the 1810.HK values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUCG.L achieves a 2.96% return, which is significantly higher than 1810.HK's -33.78% return.

NUCG.L

• 1D: 3.48%
• 1M: -10.44%
• YTD: 2.96%
• 6M: -1.20%
• 1Y: 27.62%
• 3Y*: 36.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

1810.HK

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: -17.66%
• YTD: -33.78%
• 6M: -39.41%
• 1Y: -49.72%
• 3Y*: 33.78%
• 5Y*: -1.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NUCG.L VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF	2.96%	56.10%	31.89%	0.05%
1810.HK Xiaomi Corp	-33.78%	13.72%	122.28%	14.56%

Correlation

The correlation between NUCG.L and 1810.HK is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2023	0.15

Return for Risk

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUCG.L

NUCG.L Risk / Return Rank: 23
NUCG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
NUCG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
NUCG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 23
NUCG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
NUCG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

1810.HK

1810.HK Risk / Return Rank: 4
1810.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
1810.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
1810.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 3
1810.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
1810.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L) and Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK). 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.

	NUCG.L	1810.HK	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	-1.43	+2.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	-2.36	+3.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	0.74	+0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.04	-0.89	+1.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.28	-1.51	+3.80

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUCG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is higher than the 1810.HK Sharpe Ratio of -1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUCG.L and 1810.HK, 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

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUCG.L drawdown since its inception was -35.35%, smaller than the maximum 1810.HK drawdown of -76.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUCG.L and 1810.HK.

Drawdown Indicators

	NUCG.L	1810.HK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.35%	-76.36%	+41.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.65%	-56.97%	+30.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.35%	-56.97%	+21.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-70.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.00%	-56.36%	+35.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.55%	-42.10%	+31.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.10%	32.95%	-20.85%

Volatility

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L) has a higher volatility of 12.56% compared to Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) at 8.98%. This indicates that NUCG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than 1810.HK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NUCG.L	1810.HK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.56%	8.98%	+3.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.37%	26.23%	+2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.94%	35.45%	+4.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.38%	44.22%	-9.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.38%	45.80%	-11.42%

Dividends

NUCG.L vs. 1810.HK - Dividend Comparison

Neither NUCG.L nor 1810.HK has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NUCG.L and 1810.HK in my portfolio?

NUCG.L and 1810.HK have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.