PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
URA vs. EFA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

URA vs. EFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with URA having a 7.47% return and EFA slightly lower at 7.13%. Over the past 10 years, URA has outperformed EFA with an annualized return of 15.57%, while EFA has yielded a comparatively lower 9.28% annualized return.


URA

1D
1.35%
1M
-16.78%
YTD
7.47%
6M
0.63%
1Y
43.02%
3Y*
33.80%
5Y*
19.23%
10Y*
15.57%

EFA

1D
0.61%
1M
-1.04%
YTD
7.13%
6M
9.67%
1Y
18.74%
3Y*
15.87%
5Y*
8.03%
10Y*
9.28%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

URA vs. EFA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
7.47%67.18%-0.58%46.25%-11.32%57.57%41.33%-3.54%-22.11%19.36%
EFA
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF
7.13%31.55%3.49%18.36%-14.39%11.45%7.60%22.04%-13.82%25.07%

Correlation

The correlation between URA and EFA is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.44

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010

0.56

The correlation between URA and EFA shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (1 year) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

URA vs. EFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
URA
EFA

Energy

58.2%
4.0%

Industrials

20.9%
19.9%

Utilities

9.2%
4.0%

Basic Materials

5.0%
5.9%

Technology

0.9%
10.4%

Communication Services

-

4.5%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.7%

Financial Services

-

24.6%

Healthcare

-

10.6%

Real Estate

-

1.9%

Energy

URA
58.2%
EFA
4.0%

Industrials

URA
20.9%
EFA
19.9%

Utilities

URA
9.2%
EFA
4.0%

Basic Materials

URA
5.0%
EFA
5.9%

Technology

URA
0.9%
EFA
10.4%

Communication Services

URA

-

EFA
4.5%

Consumer Cyclical

URA

-

EFA
7.6%

Consumer Defensive

URA

-

EFA
6.7%

Financial Services

URA

-

EFA
24.6%

Healthcare

URA

-

EFA
10.6%

Real Estate

URA

-

EFA
1.9%

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

URA vs. EFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

URA
URA Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank

EFA
EFA Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
EFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFA Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
EFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
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. EFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). 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.


URAEFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.23

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.52

1.65

-0.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.16

6.15

-2.99

URA vs. EFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URA Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the EFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URA and EFA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


URAEFADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.85

1.23

-0.39

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.44

0.49

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.41

0.54

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.07

0.31

-0.37

Drawdowns

URA vs. EFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than EFA's maximum drawdown of -61.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and EFA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


URAEFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-93.54%

-61.04%

-32.50%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-28.43%

-11.42%

-17.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-37.81%

-14.05%

-23.76%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.90%

-29.53%

-8.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-61.45%

-34.19%

-27.26%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-47.89%

-2.63%

-45.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.99%

-11.93%

-63.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.66%

3.05%

+10.61%

Volatility

URA vs. EFA - Volatility Comparison

Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 16.85% compared to iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) at 4.54%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


URAEFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

16.85%

4.54%

+12.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

39.19%

12.82%

+26.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

51.23%

15.31%

+35.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.83%

16.52%

+27.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

37.84%

17.28%

+20.56%

URA vs. EFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than EFA's 0.32% expense ratio.


Dividends

URA vs. EFA - Dividend Comparison

URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.54%, more than EFA's 3.16% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFA
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF
3.16%3.38%3.24%2.98%2.69%3.33%2.13%3.10%3.39%2.57%3.07%2.76%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
4.54%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


URA and EFA have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

URA has higher volatility (16.85%) compared to EFA (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs EFA's -61.04%.

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 15.57% vs 9.28% for EFA. On fees, EFA is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, EFA has been the lower-risk option at 4.54%. 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 15.57% return vs 9.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EFA is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.54%, compared with 3.16% for EFA.

URA is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while EFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while EFA tracks MSCI EAFE Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.32% for EFA.

EFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs 0.85), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for URA and EFA

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