NUKZ vs. HAP

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) and HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - NUKZ tracks the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index while HAP tracks the MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NUKZ returned 9.75% vs 39.17% for HAP. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. NUKZ charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for HAP.

Performance

NUKZ vs. HAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUKZ achieves a 0.28% return, which is significantly lower than HAP's 18.12% return.

NUKZ

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -4.27%
• 6M: -8.28%
• YTD: 0.28%
• 1Y: 9.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 44.25%

HAP

• 1D: -1.03%
• 1M: 2.81%
• 6M: 5.60%
• YTD: 18.12%
• 1Y: 39.17%
• 3Y*: 14.98%
• 5Y*: 12.25%
• 10Y*: 11.44%
• ALL TIME*: 5.91%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	$1.89M	$2.98M	$2.39M
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	$6.06M	$6.01M	$8.30M

NUKZ vs. HAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.28%	56.57%	60.11%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	18.12%	34.91%	1.42%

Correlation

The correlation between NUKZ and HAP is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2024	0.48

The correlation between NUKZ and HAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

NUKZ vs. HAP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NUKZ	HAP
Industrials	47.1%	11.6%
Utilities	35.6%	9.8%
Energy	11.2%	28.7%
Basic Materials	4.7%	38.2%
Technology	1.4%	1.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.3%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	3.8%
Real Estate	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

NUKZ vs. HAP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 16
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 16
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 16

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 91
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 91
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 86

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

NUKZ vs. HAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP). 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.

	NUKZ	HAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.22	2.48	-2.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.53	3.21	-2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.44	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.33	4.28	-3.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.80	12.10	-11.30

NUKZ vs. HAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUKZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the HAP Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUKZ and HAP, 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

NUKZ vs. HAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUKZ drawdown since its inception was -33.03%, smaller than the maximum HAP drawdown of -50.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUKZ and HAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	NUKZ	HAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.03%	-50.99%	+17.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.29%	-9.09%	-11.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.46%	-4.67%	-11.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.44%	-12.03%	+5.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.42%	3.21%	+5.21%

Volatility

NUKZ vs. HAP - Volatility Comparison

Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a higher volatility of 9.21% compared to VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) at 4.08%. This indicates that NUKZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NUKZ	HAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.21%	4.08%	+5.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.79%	12.98%	+10.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.03%	15.67%	+15.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.74%	18.21%	+14.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.74%	19.67%	+13.07%

NUKZ vs. HAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

NUKZ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than HAP's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

NUKZ vs. HAP - Dividend Comparison

NUKZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than HAP's 1.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.92%	2.27%	2.65%	3.27%	3.28%	2.16%	2.45%	2.80%	2.85%	2.02%	1.99%	3.00%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.91%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NUKZ and HAP in my portfolio?

NUKZ and HAP 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.

Which is riskier, NUKZ or HAP?

NUKZ has higher volatility (9.21%) compared to HAP (4.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUKZ dropped -33.03% vs HAP's -50.99%.

Which ETF is better, NUKZ or HAP?

On 1-year performance, HAP leads with 39.17% vs 9.75% for NUKZ. On fees, HAP is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, HAP has been the lower-risk option at 4.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NUKZ or HAP?

Over the 1-year period, HAP has performed better with a 39.17% return vs 9.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NUKZ or HAP?

HAP is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NUKZ or HAP?

HAP has the higher dividend yield at 1.92%, compared with 0.91% for NUKZ.

What is the main difference between NUKZ and HAP?

NUKZ tracks Range Nuclear Renaissance Index, while HAP tracks MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for NUKZ and 0.42% for HAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.48 vs 0.22), 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.