PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NUKZ vs. FLDR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUKZ achieves a 7.57% return, which is significantly higher than FLDR's 1.58% return.


NUKZ

1D
1.59%
1M
-1.03%
YTD
7.57%
6M
4.81%
1Y
28.77%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

FLDR

1D
0.06%
1M
0.47%
YTD
1.58%
6M
1.88%
1Y
4.76%
3Y*
5.36%
5Y*
3.70%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
NUKZ
Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF
7.57%56.57%60.11%
FLDR
Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF
1.58%5.41%5.45%

Correlation

The correlation between NUKZ and FLDR is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.16

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2024

0.10

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

NUKZ vs. FLDR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUKZ
NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank

FLDR
FLDR Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
FLDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLDR Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
FLDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLDR Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
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.

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR). 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.


NUKZFLDRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-4.98

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-8.56

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

2.73

-1.56

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.70

10.19

-8.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.11

69.63

-65.51

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUKZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is lower than the FLDR Sharpe Ratio of 5.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUKZ and FLDR, 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...

Drawdowns

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUKZ drawdown since its inception was -33.03%, which is greater than FLDR's maximum drawdown of -12.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUKZ and FLDR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NUKZFLDRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.03%

-12.23%

-20.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.51%

-0.47%

-16.04%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.76%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-2.33%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.39%

0.00%

-10.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.06%

-0.35%

-5.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.80%

0.07%

+6.73%

Volatility

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Volatility Comparison

Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a higher volatility of 11.24% compared to Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR) at 0.20%. This indicates that NUKZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NUKZFLDRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.24%

0.20%

+11.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.34%

0.59%

+22.75%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

30.46%

0.81%

+29.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

32.94%

1.21%

+31.73%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.94%

5.25%

+27.69%

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NUKZ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FLDR's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

NUKZ vs. FLDR - Dividend Comparison

NUKZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than FLDR's 4.42% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
FLDR
Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF
4.42%4.66%5.50%5.28%2.09%0.51%1.22%2.69%1.38%
NUKZ
Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF
0.85%0.91%0.09%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


NUKZ and FLDR have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NUKZ has higher volatility (11.24%) compared to FLDR (0.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUKZ dropped -33.03% vs FLDR's -12.23%.

On 1-year performance, NUKZ leads with 28.77% vs 4.76% for FLDR. On fees, FLDR is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLDR has been the lower-risk option at 0.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, NUKZ has performed better with a 28.77% return vs 4.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLDR is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

FLDR has the higher dividend yield at 4.42%, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

NUKZ is categorized as Energy Equities, while FLDR is Corporate Bonds. NUKZ tracks Range Nuclear Renaissance Index, while FLDR tracks Fidelity Low Duration Investment Grade Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for NUKZ and 0.15% for FLDR.

FLDR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.90 vs 0.92), 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 NUKZ and FLDR

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