PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
URA vs. IBAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

URA vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

URA (Global X Uranium ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, URA returned 32.00% vs 105.19% for IBAT. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. URA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

URA vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, URA achieves a 6.53% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 51.63% return.

URA

1D
1.54%
1M
-13.30%
YTD
6.53%
6M
3.57%
1Y
32.00%
3Y*
32.17%
5Y*
18.77%
10Y*
15.90%

IBAT

1D
1.07%
1M
-4.06%
YTD
51.63%
6M
46.54%
1Y
105.19%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

URA vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
URA
Global X Uranium ETF		6.53%67.18%-4.08%
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		51.63%32.09%-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between URA and IBAT is 0.60, 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

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024

0.53

The correlation between URA and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

URA vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
URA
IBAT

Energy

64.2%
3.0%

Industrials

22.7%
40.2%

Utilities

7.4%
0.5%

Basic Materials

4.8%
30.8%

Technology

0.9%
23.7%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

1.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Energy

URA
64.2%
IBAT
3.0%

Industrials

URA
22.7%
IBAT
40.2%

Utilities

URA
7.4%
IBAT
0.5%

Basic Materials

URA
4.8%
IBAT
30.8%

Technology

URA
0.9%
IBAT
23.7%

Communication Services

URA

-

IBAT

-

Consumer Cyclical

URA

-

IBAT
1.8%

Consumer Defensive

URA

-

IBAT

-

Financial Services

URA

-

IBAT

-

Healthcare

URA

-

IBAT

-

Real Estate

URA

-

IBAT

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Global X Uranium ETF

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

Often compared with URA:
URA vs. NLRURA vs. URNMURA vs. NUKZURA vs. CCJURA vs. UUUUURA vs. URANURA vs. SPY
Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. HYDR

Return for Risk

URA vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
URA
URA Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
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. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). 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.

URAIBATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.64
3.63

-2.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.21
3.98

-2.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

1.54

-0.40

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.04

7.45

-6.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.30

20.84

-18.53

URA vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URA Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 3.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URA and IBAT, 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...

Drawdowns

URA vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and IBAT.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

URAIBATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-93.54%

-28.26%

-65.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-31.48%

-13.71%

-17.77%

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

-48.34%

-8.98%

-39.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.94%

-7.74%

-67.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

14.12%

4.90%

+9.22%

Volatility

URA vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 17.69% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 13.41%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

URAIBATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.69%

13.41%

+4.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

39.95%

22.68%

+17.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

51.24%

28.18%

+23.06%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.96%

24.58%

+19.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

37.91%

24.58%

+13.33%

URA vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

URA vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than IBAT's 0.76% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		0.76%1.15%1.37%0.00%0.00%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

URA and IBAT have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

URA has higher volatility (17.69%) compared to IBAT (13.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 105.19% vs 32.00% for URA. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 13.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 105.19% return vs 32.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.76% for IBAT.

URA is categorized as Uranium, while IBAT is Alternative Energy Equities. URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.47% for IBAT.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.63 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for URA and IBAT

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