QRFT vs. NUKZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QRFT (QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF) and NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QRFT is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts, while NUKZ is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index. QRFT is actively managed, while NUKZ is passively managed. Over the past year, QRFT returned 28.98% vs 41.42% for NUKZ. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QRFT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for NUKZ.

Performance

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QRFT achieves a 12.60% return, which is significantly lower than NUKZ's 13.31% return.

QRFT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 6.39%
• YTD: 12.60%
• 6M: 12.89%
• 1Y: 28.98%
• 3Y*: 21.65%
• 5Y*: 12.39%
• 10Y*: —

NUKZ

• 1D: -2.59%
• 1M: -0.90%
• YTD: 13.31%
• 6M: 10.66%
• 1Y: 41.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QRFT QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF	12.60%	17.95%	18.59%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	13.31%	56.57%	62.98%

Correlation

The correlation between QRFT and NUKZ is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.63

The correlation between QRFT and NUKZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QRFT	NUKZ
Technology	35.4%	1.4%
Financial Services	10.7%	-
Communication Services	10.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	-
Industrials	9.7%	45.9%
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	-
Energy	4.2%	12.9%
Basic Materials	2.0%	4.0%
Utilities	1.4%	35.8%
Real Estate	1.0%	-

Return for Risk

QRFT vs. NUKZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

QRFT

QRFT Risk / Return Rank: 67
QRFT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
QRFT Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
QRFT Omega Ratio Rank: 65
QRFT Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
QRFT Martin Ratio Rank: 74

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 40
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 34
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF (QRFT) and Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ). 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.

	QRFT	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	1.40	+0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	2.02	+1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.23	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.19	2.52	+0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.12	6.34	+7.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QRFT Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is higher than the NUKZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QRFT and NUKZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QRFT	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	1.40	+0.83
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.86	1.75	-0.89

Drawdowns

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QRFT drawdown since its inception was -30.19%, smaller than the maximum NUKZ drawdown of -33.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QRFT and NUKZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QRFT	NUKZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.19%	-33.03%	+2.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.12%	-16.51%	+7.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.99%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.34%	-5.61%	+5.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.79%	-6.01%	-0.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	6.55%	-4.49%

Volatility

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF (QRFT) is 3.45%, while Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a volatility of 10.30%. This indicates that QRFT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NUKZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QRFT	NUKZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.45%	10.30%	-6.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.97%	22.05%	-12.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.08%	29.74%	-16.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.34%	32.70%	-15.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.10%	32.70%	-12.60%

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QRFT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than NUKZ's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

QRFT vs. NUKZ - Dividend Comparison

QRFT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.25%, less than NUKZ's 0.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.80%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QRFT QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF	0.25%	0.27%	0.52%	0.77%	0.83%	0.05%	1.81%	4.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QRFT and NUKZ in my portfolio?

QRFT and NUKZ have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QRFT or NUKZ?

NUKZ has higher volatility (10.30%) compared to QRFT (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QRFT dropped -30.19% vs NUKZ's -33.03%.

Which ETF is better, QRFT or NUKZ?

On 1-year performance, NUKZ leads with 41.42% vs 28.98% for QRFT. On fees, QRFT is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, QRFT has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QRFT or NUKZ?

Over the 1-year period, NUKZ has performed better with a 41.42% return vs 28.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QRFT or NUKZ?

QRFT is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

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

NUKZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.80%, compared with 0.25% for QRFT.

What is the main difference between QRFT and NUKZ?

QRFT is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while NUKZ is Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for QRFT and 0.85% for NUKZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QRFT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.40), 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.