QTR vs. URA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QTR (Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QTR is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Protective Put 90 Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QTR returned 20.74%/yr vs 34.68%/yr for URA. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

QTR vs. URA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTR achieves a 14.00% return, which is significantly higher than URA's 6.67% return.

QTR

• 1D: -2.27%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 14.00%
• 6M: 12.63%
• 1Y: 28.74%
• 3Y*: 20.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

URA

• 1D: -2.61%
• 1M: -6.90%
• YTD: 6.67%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 27.21%
• 3Y*: 34.68%
• 5Y*: 20.40%
• 10Y*: 16.42%

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

QTR vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	14.00%	14.52%	21.46%	45.53%	-29.94%	4.16%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	6.67%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	25.02%

Correlation

The correlation between QTR and URA is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 26, 2021	0.46

The correlation between QTR and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (all time) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QTR vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTR	URA
Technology	59.2%	0.9%
Communication Services	13.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	-
Healthcare	3.7%	-
Industrials	3.3%	22.7%
Utilities	1.1%	7.4%
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.8%
Energy	0.5%	64.2%
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QTR vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTR

QTR Risk / Return Rank: 53
QTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
QTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
QTR Omega Ratio Rank: 55
QTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
QTR Martin Ratio Rank: 49

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 19
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 19
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

QTR vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) 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.

	QTR	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	0.53	+1.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	1.09	+1.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.13	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	0.87	+1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.86	1.87	+5.99

QTR vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTR 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.

Drawdowns

QTR vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTR drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTR and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTR	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-93.54%	+61.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.29%	-31.48%	+19.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.99%	-37.81%	+18.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.90%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.33%	-48.27%	+44.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.77%	-74.90%	+66.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	14.58%	-10.92%

Volatility

QTR vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) is 8.36%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 17.86%. This indicates that QTR 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.

Volatility by Period

	QTR	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	17.86%	-9.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.86%	39.53%	-26.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.96%	51.33%	-35.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.35%	43.92%	-25.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.35%	37.95%	-19.60%

QTR vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTR vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

QTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.47%, more than URA's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	16.47%	18.77%	0.50%	0.53%	0.36%	1.90%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	4.57%	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

Can I hold both QTR and URA in my portfolio?

QTR and URA have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTR or URA?

URA has higher volatility (17.86%) compared to QTR (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTR dropped -31.72% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, QTR or URA?

On 3-year performance, URA leads with 34.68% vs 20.74% for QTR. On fees, QTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QTR has been the lower-risk option at 8.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTR or URA?

Over the 3-year period, URA has performed better with a 34.68% return vs 20.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTR or URA?

QTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QTR or URA?

QTR has the higher dividend yield at 16.47%, compared with 4.57% for URA.

What is the main difference between QTR and URA?

QTR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while URA is Uranium. QTR tracks NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Protective Put 90 Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QTR and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 0.53), 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.