PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PGJ vs. URA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PGJ vs. URA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -8.75% return, which is significantly lower than URA's 25.02% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed URA with an annualized return of 0.64%, while URA has yielded a comparatively higher 17.81% annualized return.


PGJ

1D
1.98%
1M
-1.05%
YTD
-8.75%
6M
-12.02%
1Y
-1.79%
3Y*
3.86%
5Y*
-13.04%
10Y*
0.64%

URA

1D
5.70%
1M
-4.33%
YTD
25.02%
6M
23.66%
1Y
75.62%
3Y*
42.00%
5Y*
23.53%
10Y*
17.81%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PGJ vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF
-8.75%13.66%5.91%-2.38%-24.50%-42.87%54.24%32.18%-29.51%60.27%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
25.02%67.18%-0.58%46.25%-11.32%57.57%41.33%-3.54%-22.11%19.36%

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and URA is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.39

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.34

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.39

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2010

0.44

PGJ vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PGJ
URA

Consumer Cyclical

44.8%

-

Technology

16.2%
0.9%

Communication Services

14.5%

-

Consumer Defensive

7.6%

-

Industrials

6.5%
21.9%

Financial Services

3.6%

-

Real Estate

3.1%

-

Energy

2.3%
57.0%

Healthcare

0.8%

-

Basic Materials

-

5.0%

Utilities

-

9.4%

Consumer Cyclical

PGJ
44.8%
URA

-

Technology

PGJ
16.2%
URA
0.9%

Communication Services

PGJ
14.5%
URA

-

Consumer Defensive

PGJ
7.6%
URA

-

Industrials

PGJ
6.5%
URA
21.9%

Financial Services

PGJ
3.6%
URA

-

Real Estate

PGJ
3.1%
URA

-

Energy

PGJ
2.3%
URA
57.0%

Healthcare

PGJ
0.8%
URA

-

Basic Materials

PGJ

-

URA
5.0%

Utilities

PGJ

-

URA
9.4%

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

PGJ vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

PGJ
PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 88
Overall Rank
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
Calmar Ratio Rank
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 88
Martin Ratio Rank

URA
URA Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
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.

PGJ vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). 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.


PGJURADifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

-0.07

1.53

-1.60

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.07

2.16

-2.09

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.01

1.25

-0.24

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

-0.04

2.63

-2.68

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

-0.08

5.61

-5.69

PGJ vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.07, which is lower than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and URA, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


PGJURADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.07

1.53

-1.60

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.30

0.54

-0.84

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.02

0.47

-0.46

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

-0.04

+0.16

Drawdowns

PGJ vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and URA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PGJURADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.37%

-93.54%

+15.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.69%

-28.43%

+2.74%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.82%

-37.81%

+6.99%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-70.00%

-37.90%

-32.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-78.37%

-61.45%

-16.92%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-65.21%

-39.38%

-25.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.73%

-75.02%

+43.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.32%

13.35%

-0.03%

Volatility

PGJ vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 8.19%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 14.99%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PGJURADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.19%

14.99%

-6.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.14%

37.90%

-20.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.35%

49.84%

-25.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.74%

43.55%

+0.19%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.70%

37.69%

-0.99%

PGJ vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.


Dividends

PGJ vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.47%, less than URA's 3.90% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF
3.47%3.38%4.70%2.50%0.84%0.00%0.30%0.17%0.31%2.05%1.94%0.37%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
3.90%4.88%2.86%6.07%0.76%5.84%1.69%1.66%0.44%2.03%7.28%1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions


PGJ and URA have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

URA has higher volatility (14.99%) compared to PGJ (8.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs URA's -93.54%.

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 17.81% vs 0.64% for PGJ. On fees, URA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 8.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, URA has performed better with a 17.81% return vs 0.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

URA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.

URA has the higher dividend yield at 3.90%, compared with 3.47% for PGJ.

PGJ is categorized as China Equities, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.69% for URA.

URA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs -0.07), 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 PGJ and URA

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