NUKZ vs. SCHA

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) and SCHA (Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NUKZ is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index, while SCHA is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NUKZ returned 28.77% vs 43.96% for SCHA. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NUKZ charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHA.

Performance

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUKZ achieves a 7.57% return, which is significantly lower than SCHA's 22.49% return.

NUKZ

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

SCHA

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 6.94%
• YTD: 22.49%
• 6M: 19.84%
• 1Y: 43.96%
• 3Y*: 18.37%
• 5Y*: 7.19%
• 10Y*: 11.55%

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

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	7.57%	56.57%	60.11%
SCHA Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF	22.49%	11.60%	13.69%

Correlation

The correlation between NUKZ and SCHA is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2024	0.63

The correlation between NUKZ and SCHA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NUKZ	SCHA
Industrials	46.5%	15.7%
Utilities	35.4%	2.3%
Energy	11.8%	5.4%
Basic Materials	4.7%	4.1%
Technology	1.6%	22.7%
Communication Services	-	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Financial Services	-	15.7%
Healthcare	-	13.6%
Real Estate	-	6.1%

Return for Risk

NUKZ vs. SCHA — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 31
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 32

SCHA

SCHA Risk / Return Rank: 82
SCHA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
SCHA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
SCHA Omega Ratio Rank: 74
SCHA Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
SCHA Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. SCHA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA). 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	SCHA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.92	2.24	-1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	3.10	-1.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.37	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.70	4.38	-2.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.11	16.08	-11.97

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUKZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is lower than the SCHA Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUKZ and SCHA, 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. SCHA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUKZ drawdown since its inception was -33.03%, smaller than the maximum SCHA drawdown of -42.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUKZ and SCHA.

Drawdown Indicators

	NUKZ	SCHA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.03%	-42.41%	+9.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.51%	-9.50%	-7.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.29%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.79%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.41%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.39%	0.00%	-10.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.06%	-7.57%	+1.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.80%	2.59%	+4.21%

Volatility

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Volatility Comparison

Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a higher volatility of 11.24% compared to Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA) at 6.62%. This indicates that NUKZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NUKZ	SCHA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.24%	6.62%	+4.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.34%	13.67%	+9.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.46%	18.62%	+11.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.94%	22.03%	+10.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.94%	22.75%	+10.19%

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Expense Ratio Comparison

NUKZ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHA's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

NUKZ vs. SCHA - Dividend Comparison

NUKZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than SCHA's 0.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.85%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SCHA Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF	0.98%	1.26%	1.51%	1.42%	1.37%	1.19%	1.05%	1.39%	1.58%	1.24%	1.50%	1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NUKZ and SCHA in my portfolio?

NUKZ and SCHA have a correlation of 0.67, 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 SCHA?

NUKZ has higher volatility (11.24%) compared to SCHA (6.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUKZ dropped -33.03% vs SCHA's -42.41%.

Which ETF is better, NUKZ or SCHA?

On 1-year performance, SCHA leads with 43.96% vs 28.77% for NUKZ. On fees, SCHA is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHA has been the lower-risk option at 6.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NUKZ or SCHA?

Over the 1-year period, SCHA has performed better with a 43.96% return vs 28.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NUKZ or SCHA?

SCHA is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

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

SCHA has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

What is the main difference between NUKZ and SCHA?

NUKZ is categorized as Energy Equities, while SCHA is Small Cap Blend Equities. NUKZ tracks Range Nuclear Renaissance Index, while SCHA tracks Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for NUKZ and 0.04% for SCHA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCHA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 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.