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

Performance

URA vs. ITB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB). 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 7.47% return, which is significantly higher than ITB's -3.71% return. Over the past 10 years, URA has outperformed ITB with an annualized return of 15.57%, while ITB has yielded a comparatively lower 13.61% 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%

ITB

1D
-0.38%
1M
-0.48%
YTD
-3.71%
6M
-7.66%
1Y
3.31%
3Y*
6.44%
5Y*
6.84%
10Y*
13.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

URA vs. ITB - 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%
ITB
iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF
-3.71%-5.26%2.06%68.91%-26.26%49.25%26.42%48.70%-30.92%59.65%

Correlation

The correlation between URA and ITB is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.14

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

0.22

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

0.30

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

0.31

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

0.35

Over the past year, the correlation between URA and ITB has dropped to 0.14 - well below their long-term average of 0.35, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

URA vs. ITB - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
URA
ITB

Energy

58.2%

-

Industrials

20.9%
19.1%

Utilities

9.2%

-

Basic Materials

5.0%
8.6%

Technology

0.9%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

71.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

0.5%

Energy

URA
58.2%
ITB

-

Industrials

URA
20.9%
ITB
19.1%

Utilities

URA
9.2%
ITB

-

Basic Materials

URA
5.0%
ITB
8.6%

Technology

URA
0.9%
ITB

-

Communication Services

URA

-

ITB

-

Consumer Cyclical

URA

-

ITB
71.8%

Consumer Defensive

URA

-

ITB

-

Financial Services

URA

-

ITB

-

Healthcare

URA

-

ITB

-

Real Estate

URA

-

ITB
0.5%

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. ITB — 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

ITB
ITB Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
ITB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ITB Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
ITB Omega Ratio Rank: 1212
Omega Ratio Rank
ITB Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
ITB Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
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. ITB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB). 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.


URAITBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.73

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.03

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.05

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.52

0.13

+1.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.16

0.25

+2.91

URA vs. ITB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URA Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is higher than the ITB Sharpe Ratio of 0.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URA and ITB, 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


URAITBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.85

0.11

+0.73

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.44

0.24

+0.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.41

0.46

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.07

0.11

-0.17

Drawdowns

URA vs. ITB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than ITB's maximum drawdown of -86.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and ITB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


URAITBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-93.54%

-86.53%

-7.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-28.43%

-26.04%

-2.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-37.81%

-33.35%

-4.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.90%

-40.55%

+2.65%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-61.45%

-52.10%

-9.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-47.89%

-27.00%

-20.89%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.99%

-37.10%

-37.89%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.66%

13.28%

+0.38%

Volatility

URA vs. ITB - Volatility Comparison

Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 16.85% compared to iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) at 7.16%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ITB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


URAITBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

16.85%

7.16%

+9.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

39.19%

20.24%

+18.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

51.23%

29.41%

+21.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.83%

29.19%

+14.64%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

37.84%

30.00%

+7.84%

URA vs. ITB - Expense Ratio Comparison

URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than ITB's 0.42% expense ratio.


Dividends

URA vs. ITB - Dividend Comparison

URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.54%, more than ITB's 1.23% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ITB
iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF
1.23%1.67%0.46%0.48%0.86%0.37%0.46%0.50%0.63%0.28%0.43%0.34%
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 ITB have a correlation of 0.14, 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 ITB (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs ITB's -86.53%.

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 15.57% vs 13.61% for ITB. On fees, ITB is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, ITB has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. 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 13.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ITB is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.54%, compared with 1.23% for ITB.

URA is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while ITB is Building & Construction. URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.42% for ITB.

URA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.85 vs 0.11), 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 ITB

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