PGJ vs. URA
PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PGJ is a China Equities fund tracking the Halter USX China Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGJ returned -0.38%/yr vs 14.60%/yr for URA. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.
Performance
PGJ vs. URA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -17.71% return, which is significantly lower than URA's -4.70% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed URA with an annualized return of -0.38%, while URA has yielded a comparatively higher 14.60% annualized return.
PGJ
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -3.09%
- 6M
- -22.87%
- YTD
- -17.71%
- 1Y
- -15.96%
- 3Y*
- -3.07%
- 5Y*
- -13.37%
- 10Y*
- -0.38%
URA
- 1D
- -5.24%
- 1M
- -10.54%
- 6M
- -21.33%
- YTD
- -4.70%
- 1Y
- 13.74%
- 3Y*
- 28.92%
- 5Y*
- 19.86%
- 10Y*
- 14.60%
PGJ vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -17.71% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
URA Global X Uranium ETF | -4.70% | 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 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010 | 0.44 |
PGJ vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
PGJ
URA
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
Technology
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Industrials
Energy
Healthcare
-
Basic Materials
-
Utilities
-
Consumer Cyclical
PGJ
URA
-
Communication Services
PGJ
URA
-
Technology
PGJ
URA
Consumer Defensive
PGJ
URA
-
Financial Services
PGJ
URA
-
Real Estate
PGJ
URA
-
Industrials
PGJ
URA
Energy
PGJ
URA
Healthcare
PGJ
URA
-
Basic Materials
PGJ
-
URA
Utilities
PGJ
-
URA
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
PGJ
URA
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.
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.
| PGJ | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.91 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.56 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.91 | 1.09 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.46 | 0.40 | -0.86 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.96 | 0.85 | -1.82 |
Loading charts...
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
| PGJ | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -93.54% | +15.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.08% | -34.12% | -0.96% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.08% | -37.81% | +2.73% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -66.68% | -37.90% | -28.78% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | -61.45% | -16.92% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -68.63% | -53.79% | -14.84% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.91% | -74.82% | +42.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.58% | 16.12% | +0.46% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. URA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 7.00%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 12.56%. 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
| PGJ | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.00% | 12.56% | -5.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.84% | 38.93% | -21.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.84% | 51.61% | -26.77% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.69% | 44.00% | -0.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.72% | 37.98% | -1.26% |
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 3.24%, less than URA's 5.12% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.24% | 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 | 5.12% | 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 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
URA has higher volatility (12.56%) compared to PGJ (7.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs URA's -93.54%.
On 10-year performance, URA leads with 14.60% vs -0.38% for PGJ. On fees, URA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 7.00%. 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 14.60% return vs -0.38%. 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 5.12%, compared with 3.24% for PGJ.
PGJ is categorized as China Equities, while URA is Uranium. PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return 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 (0.27 vs -0.65), 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.
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