QCLR vs. URA
QCLR (Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Collar 95-110 Index, while URA is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QCLR returned 13.84%/yr vs 39.27%/yr for URA. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QCLR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.
Performance
QCLR vs. URA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QCLR achieves a 1.40% return, which is significantly lower than URA's 17.93% return.
QCLR
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 1.52%
- YTD
- 1.40%
- 6M
- -0.07%
- 1Y
- 11.39%
- 3Y*
- 13.84%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
URA
- 1D
- -5.67%
- 1M
- -8.00%
- YTD
- 17.93%
- 6M
- 13.25%
- 1Y
- 61.26%
- 3Y*
- 39.27%
- 5Y*
- 21.39%
- 10Y*
- 17.12%
QCLR vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QCLR Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF | 1.40% | 11.27% | 20.27% | 28.87% | -18.87% | 3.02% |
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 17.93% | 67.18% | -0.58% | 46.25% | -11.32% | 26.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between QCLR and URA is 0.51, 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 | 0.51 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 27, 2021 | 0.42 |
The correlation between QCLR and URA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.42 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.
QCLR vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QCLR
URA
Technology
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
QCLR
URA
Communication Services
QCLR
URA
-
Consumer Cyclical
QCLR
URA
-
Consumer Defensive
QCLR
URA
-
Healthcare
QCLR
URA
-
Industrials
QCLR
URA
Utilities
QCLR
URA
Basic Materials
QCLR
URA
Energy
QCLR
URA
Financial Services
QCLR
URA
-
Real Estate
QCLR
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
QCLR vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank
QCLR
URA
QCLR vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR) 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.
| QCLR | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.22 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.12 | 2.17 | -1.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.02 | 4.58 | -0.56 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QCLR | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.17 | 1.23 | -0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.49 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.46 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.67 | -0.05 | +0.72 |
Drawdowns
QCLR vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QCLR drawdown since its inception was -21.77%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCLR and URA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QCLR | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.77% | -93.54% | +71.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.22% | -28.43% | +18.21% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.58% | -37.81% | +24.23% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -37.90% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -61.45% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.89% | -42.81% | +41.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.20% | -75.01% | +68.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.84% | 13.40% | -10.56% |
Volatility
QCLR vs. URA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR) is 0.45%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 15.94%. This indicates that QCLR 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
| QCLR | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.45% | 15.94% | -15.49% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.24% | 38.29% | -31.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.82% | 50.19% | -40.37% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.42% | 43.62% | -31.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.42% | 37.73% | -25.31% |
QCLR vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison
QCLR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
QCLR vs. URA - Dividend Comparison
QCLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.68%, more than URA's 4.14% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QCLR Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF | 14.68% | 14.89% | 8.89% | 0.47% | 0.27% | 1.64% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 4.14% | 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
QCLR and URA have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
URA has higher volatility (15.94%) compared to QCLR (0.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCLR dropped -21.77% vs URA's -93.54%.
On 3-year performance, URA leads with 39.27% vs 13.84% for QCLR. On fees, QCLR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QCLR has been the lower-risk option at 0.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, URA has performed better with a 39.27% return vs 13.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QCLR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.
QCLR has the higher dividend yield at 14.68%, compared with 4.14% for URA.
QCLR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. QCLR tracks NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Collar 95-110 Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QCLR and 0.69% for URA.
URA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs 1.17), 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 QCLR 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