URA vs. NUCG.L
Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L).
URA and NUCG.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. URA is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Index. It was launched on Nov 4, 2010. NUCG.L is a passively managed fund by VanEck that tracks the performance of the MarketVector Global Uranium and Nuclear Energy Infrastructure. It was launched on Feb 3, 2023. Both URA and NUCG.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
URA vs. NUCG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
URA vs. NUCG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 13.34% | 67.18% | -0.58% | 29.71% |
NUCG.L VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF | 5.25% | 56.08% | 31.87% | 19.75% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, URA achieves a 13.34% return, which is significantly higher than NUCG.L's 5.25% return.
URA
- 1D
- 6.93%
- 1M
- -10.88%
- YTD
- 13.34%
- 6M
- 6.44%
- 1Y
- 121.39%
- 3Y*
- 40.54%
- 5Y*
- 24.65%
- 10Y*
- 16.47%
NUCG.L
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- -13.95%
- YTD
- 5.25%
- 6M
- -2.28%
- 1Y
- 99.57%
- 3Y*
- 41.94%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
URA vs. NUCG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than NUCG.L's 0.55% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
URA vs. NUCG.L — Risk / Return Rank
URA
NUCG.L
URA vs. NUCG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L). 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 | NUCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.48 | 2.43 | +0.06 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.97 | 3.06 | -0.09 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.37 | 1.37 | 0.00 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.21 | 3.60 | +0.61 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.13 | 9.29 | +0.84 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| URA | NUCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.48 | 2.43 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.58 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.44 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.06 | 0.97 | -1.02 |
Correlation
The correlation between URA and NUCG.L is 0.66, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
URA vs. NUCG.L - Dividend Comparison
URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.30%, while NUCG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 4.30% | 4.88% | 2.86% | 6.07% | 0.76% | 5.84% | 1.69% | 1.66% | 0.44% | 2.03% | 7.28% | 1.96% |
NUCG.L VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
URA vs. NUCG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than NUCG.L's maximum drawdown of -35.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and NUCG.L.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| URA | NUCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -93.54% | -35.36% | -58.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -28.43% | -26.65% | -1.78% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.90% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -61.45% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -45.04% | -19.25% | -25.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -75.40% | -8.99% | -66.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.82% | 10.33% | +1.49% |
Volatility
URA vs. NUCG.L - Volatility Comparison
Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 16.31% compared to VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Technologies UCITS ETF (NUCG.L) at 11.37%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NUCG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| URA | NUCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.31% | 11.37% | +4.94% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 38.54% | 30.28% | +8.26% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 49.21% | 40.89% | +8.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.00% | 36.71% | +6.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.23% | 36.71% | +0.52% |