URA vs. QGRW

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

URA (Global X Uranium ETF) and QGRW (WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while QGRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, URA returned 32.17%/yr vs 26.27%/yr for QGRW. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. URA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for QGRW.

Performance

URA vs. QGRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW). 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 lower than QGRW's 10.35% 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%

QGRW

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -0.58%
• YTD: 10.35%
• 6M: 11.58%
• 1Y: 29.61%
• 3Y*: 26.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

URA vs. QGRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
URA Global X Uranium ETF	6.53%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	1.88%
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	10.35%	19.20%	34.85%	56.05%	-3.07%

Correlation

The correlation between URA and QGRW is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2022	0.48

The correlation between URA and QGRW shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (all time) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

URA vs. QGRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	URA	QGRW
Energy	64.2%	0.5%
Industrials	22.7%	7.6%
Utilities	7.4%	0.3%
Basic Materials	4.8%	-
Technology	0.9%	55.0%
Communication Services	-	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	3.7%
Healthcare	-	4.4%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

URA vs. QGRW — 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

QGRW

QGRW Risk / Return Rank: 47
QGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
QGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 48
QGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
QGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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. QGRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW). 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	QGRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	1.52	-0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.21	2.06	-0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.27	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.04	1.80	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.30	6.86	-4.56

URA vs. QGRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URA Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the QGRW Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URA and QGRW, 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. QGRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than QGRW's maximum drawdown of -24.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and QGRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	URA	QGRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.54%	-24.40%	-69.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.48%	-15.44%	-16.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.81%	-24.40%	-13.41%
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%	-5.67%	-42.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.94%	-3.27%	-71.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.12%	4.04%	+10.08%

Volatility

URA vs. QGRW - Volatility Comparison

Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 17.69% compared to WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW) at 7.09%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QGRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	URA	QGRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.69%	7.09%	+10.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.95%	14.83%	+25.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.24%	18.25%	+32.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.96%	21.20%	+22.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.91%	21.20%	+16.71%

URA vs. QGRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than QGRW's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

URA vs. QGRW - Dividend Comparison

URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than QGRW's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	0.08%	0.09%	0.14%	0.11%	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

Can I hold both URA and QGRW in my portfolio?

URA and QGRW have a correlation of 0.58, 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 QGRW?

URA has higher volatility (17.69%) compared to QGRW (7.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs QGRW's -24.40%.

Which ETF is better, URA or QGRW?

On 3-year performance, URA leads with 32.17% vs 26.27% for QGRW. On fees, QGRW is cheaper at 0.28% per year. On volatility, QGRW has been the lower-risk option at 7.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, URA or QGRW?

Over the 3-year period, URA has performed better with a 32.17% return vs 26.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, URA or QGRW?

QGRW is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.08% for QGRW.

What is the main difference between URA and QGRW?

URA is categorized as Uranium, while QGRW is Large Cap Growth Equities. URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while QGRW tracks WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and WisdomTree. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.28% for QGRW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QGRW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.52 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.