URA vs. SCHF
URA (Global X Uranium ETF) and SCHF (Schwab International Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while SCHF is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the FTSE Developed ex U.S. Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, URA returned 15.90%/yr vs 10.82%/yr for SCHF. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. URA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for SCHF.
Performance
URA vs. SCHF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, URA achieves a 6.53% return, which is significantly lower than SCHF's 15.39% return. Over the past 10 years, URA has outperformed SCHF with an annualized return of 15.90%, while SCHF has yielded a comparatively lower 10.82% annualized 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%
SCHF
- 1D
- 0.29%
- 1M
- 3.90%
- YTD
- 15.39%
- 6M
- 17.24%
- 1Y
- 31.75%
- 3Y*
- 19.18%
- 5Y*
- 9.76%
- 10Y*
- 10.82%
URA vs. SCHF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 6.53% | 67.18% | -0.58% | 46.25% | -11.32% | 57.57% | 41.33% | -3.54% | -22.11% | 19.36% |
SCHF Schwab International Equity ETF | 15.39% | 34.55% | 3.28% | 18.35% | -14.80% | 11.40% | 9.48% | 22.26% | -14.29% | 26.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between URA and SCHF is 0.51, 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 | 0.51 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.56 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010 | 0.58 |
The correlation between URA and SCHF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.
URA vs. SCHF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
URA
SCHF
Energy
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Technology
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Energy
URA
SCHF
Industrials
URA
SCHF
Utilities
URA
SCHF
Basic Materials
URA
SCHF
Technology
URA
SCHF
Communication Services
URA
-
SCHF
Consumer Cyclical
URA
-
SCHF
Consumer Defensive
URA
-
SCHF
Financial Services
URA
-
SCHF
Healthcare
URA
-
SCHF
Real Estate
URA
-
SCHF
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. SCHF — Risk / Return Rank
URA
SCHF
URA vs. SCHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and Schwab International Equity ETF (SCHF). 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 | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.18 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 1.33 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.04 | 2.64 | -1.61 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.30 | 10.14 | -7.84 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
URA vs. SCHF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than SCHF's maximum drawdown of -34.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and SCHF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| URA | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -93.54% | -34.87% | -58.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -31.48% | -11.48% | -20.00% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -37.81% | -13.41% | -24.40% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.90% | -29.14% | -8.76% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -61.45% | -34.87% | -26.58% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -48.34% | -1.00% | -47.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -74.94% | -7.37% | -67.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.12% | 2.99% | +11.13% |
Volatility
URA vs. SCHF - Volatility Comparison
Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 17.69% compared to Schwab International Equity ETF (SCHF) at 6.91%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| URA | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.69% | 6.91% | +10.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 39.95% | 14.42% | +25.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 51.24% | 16.67% | +34.57% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.96% | 16.56% | +27.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.91% | 17.24% | +20.67% |
URA vs. SCHF - Expense Ratio Comparison
URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHF's 0.06% expense ratio.
Dividends
URA vs. SCHF - Dividend Comparison
URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than SCHF's 2.96% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SCHF Schwab International Equity ETF | 2.96% | 3.42% | 3.26% | 2.97% | 2.80% | 3.19% | 2.08% | 2.95% | 3.06% | 2.35% | 2.58% | 2.26% |
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 SCHF have a correlation of 0.51, 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 SCHF (6.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs SCHF's -34.87%.
On 10-year performance, URA leads with 15.90% vs 10.82% for SCHF. On fees, SCHF is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, SCHF has been the lower-risk option at 6.91%. 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 15.90% return vs 10.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHF is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.
URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 2.96% for SCHF.
URA is categorized as Uranium, while SCHF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while SCHF tracks FTSE Developed ex U.S. Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.06% for SCHF.
SCHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 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.
Find the right allocation for URA and SCHF
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