URA vs. CSNR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

URA (Global X Uranium ETF) and CSNR (Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. URA is passively managed, while CSNR is actively managed. Over the past year, URA returned 61.26% vs 47.34% for CSNR. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. URA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CSNR.

Performance

URA vs. CSNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, URA achieves a 17.93% return, which is significantly lower than CSNR's 21.88% return.

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%

CSNR

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 21.88%
• 6M: 24.62%
• 1Y: 47.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

URA vs. CSNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
URA Global X Uranium ETF	17.93%	54.49%
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	21.88%	26.55%

Correlation

The correlation between URA and CSNR is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2025	0.48

Return for Risk

URA vs. CSNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 34
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 31
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 30

CSNR

CSNR Risk / Return Rank: 86
CSNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CSNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CSNR Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CSNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CSNR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

URA vs. CSNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR). 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.

	URA	CSNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	2.81	-1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	3.59	-1.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.48	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.17	5.67	-3.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.58	22.27	-17.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

URA vs. CSNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URA Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is lower than the CSNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URA and CSNR, 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

	URA	CSNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.23	2.81	-1.58
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	-0.05	1.97	-2.02

Drawdowns

URA vs. CSNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than CSNR's maximum drawdown of -15.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and CSNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	URA	CSNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.54%	-15.33%	-78.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.43%	-8.39%	-20.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.81%	—	—
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	-42.81%	-1.42%	-41.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-75.01%	-1.82%	-73.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.40%	2.13%	+11.27%

Volatility

URA vs. CSNR - Volatility Comparison

Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 15.94% compared to Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) at 4.24%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	URA	CSNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.94%	4.24%	+11.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.29%	13.65%	+24.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.19%	16.94%	+33.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.62%	19.77%	+23.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.73%	19.77%	+17.96%

URA vs. CSNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than CSNR's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

URA vs. CSNR - Dividend Comparison

URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.14%, more than CSNR's 1.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	1.98%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both URA and CSNR in my portfolio?

URA and CSNR have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, URA or CSNR?

URA has higher volatility (15.94%) compared to CSNR (4.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs CSNR's -15.33%.

Which ETF is better, URA or CSNR?

On 1-year performance, URA leads with 61.26% vs 47.34% for CSNR. On fees, CSNR is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CSNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, URA or CSNR?

Over the 1-year period, URA has performed better with a 61.26% return vs 47.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, URA or CSNR?

CSNR is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.14%, compared with 1.98% for CSNR.

What is the main difference between URA and CSNR?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Cohen & Steers. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.50% for CSNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 1.23), 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.