URA vs. GDMN

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

URA (Global X Uranium ETF) and GDMN (WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while GDMN is a Commodities fund actively managed by WisdomTree. URA is passively managed, while GDMN is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, URA returned 32.17%/yr vs 56.30%/yr for GDMN. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. URA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for GDMN.

Performance

URA vs. GDMN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund (GDMN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, URA achieves a 6.53% return, which is significantly higher than GDMN's -13.77% return.

URA

• 1D: 1.54%
• 1M: -8.83%
• YTD: 6.53%
• 6M: 3.57%
• 1Y: 32.00%
• 3Y*: 32.17%
• 5Y*: 18.77%
• 10Y*: 15.90%

GDMN

• 1D: 2.11%
• 1M: -13.90%
• YTD: -13.77%
• 6M: -13.73%
• 1Y: 51.90%
• 3Y*: 56.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

URA vs. GDMN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
URA Global X Uranium ETF	6.53%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	-0.71%
GDMN WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund	-13.77%	237.09%	28.23%	12.97%	-14.62%	6.93%

Correlation

The correlation between URA and GDMN is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2021	0.42

URA vs. GDMN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	URA	GDMN
Energy	64.2%	-
Industrials	22.7%	-
Utilities	7.4%	-
Basic Materials	4.8%	100.0%
Technology	0.9%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

URA vs. GDMN — Risk / Return Rank

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

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 23
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 23
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 21

GDMN

GDMN Risk / Return Rank: 29
GDMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GDMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
GDMN Omega Ratio Rank: 33
GDMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
GDMN Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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. GDMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund (GDMN). 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.

	URA	GDMN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	0.90	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.21	1.38	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.20	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.04	1.17	-0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.30	3.15	-0.85

URA vs. GDMN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URA Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is comparable to the GDMN Sharpe Ratio of 0.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URA and GDMN, 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

URA vs. GDMN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than GDMN's maximum drawdown of -52.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and GDMN.

Drawdown Indicators

	URA	GDMN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.54%	-52.82%	-40.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.48%	-48.76%	+17.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.81%	-48.76%	+10.95%
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	-48.34%	-43.39%	-4.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.94%	-19.02%	-55.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.12%	18.01%	-3.89%

Volatility

URA vs. GDMN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) is 17.69%, while WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund (GDMN) has a volatility of 21.98%. This indicates that URA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDMN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	URA	GDMN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.69%	21.98%	-4.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.95%	54.30%	-14.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.24%	63.44%	-12.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.96%	48.07%	-4.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.91%	48.07%	-10.16%

URA vs. GDMN - Expense Ratio Comparison

URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than GDMN's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

URA vs. GDMN - Dividend Comparison

URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than GDMN's 3.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GDMN WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund	3.13%	2.70%	9.44%	7.69%	1.44%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	4.58%	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 GDMN in my portfolio?

URA and GDMN have a correlation of 0.49, 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 GDMN?

GDMN has higher volatility (21.98%) compared to URA (17.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs GDMN's -52.82%.

Which ETF is better, URA or GDMN?

On 3-year performance, GDMN leads with 56.30% vs 32.17% for URA. On fees, GDMN is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, URA has been the lower-risk option at 17.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, URA or GDMN?

Over the 3-year period, GDMN has performed better with a 56.30% return vs 32.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, URA or GDMN?

GDMN is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 3.13% for GDMN.

What is the main difference between URA and GDMN?

URA is categorized as Uranium, while GDMN is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and WisdomTree. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.45% for GDMN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.64), 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.