URA vs. XMMO
URA (Global X Uranium ETF) and XMMO (Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while XMMO is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, URA returned 15.90%/yr vs 19.95%/yr for XMMO. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. URA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for XMMO.
Performance
URA vs. XMMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, URA achieves a 6.53% return, which is significantly lower than XMMO's 22.77% return. Over the past 10 years, URA has underperformed XMMO with an annualized return of 15.90%, while XMMO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.95% annualized 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%
XMMO
- 1D
- 0.96%
- 1M
- 3.55%
- YTD
- 22.77%
- 6M
- 22.33%
- 1Y
- 37.93%
- 3Y*
- 30.62%
- 5Y*
- 15.91%
- 10Y*
- 19.95%
URA vs. XMMO - 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% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 22.77% | 13.04% | 38.03% | 20.39% | -16.02% | 16.69% | 29.17% | 36.78% | 6.12% | 37.18% |
Correlation
The correlation between URA and XMMO is 0.54, 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 | 0.54 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010 | 0.52 |
The correlation between URA and XMMO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.
URA vs. XMMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
URA
XMMO
Energy
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Technology
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Energy
URA
XMMO
Industrials
URA
XMMO
Utilities
URA
XMMO
Basic Materials
URA
XMMO
Technology
URA
XMMO
Communication Services
URA
-
XMMO
Consumer Cyclical
URA
-
XMMO
Consumer Defensive
URA
-
XMMO
Financial Services
URA
-
XMMO
Healthcare
URA
-
XMMO
Real Estate
URA
-
XMMO
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. XMMO — Risk / Return Rank
URA
XMMO
URA vs. XMMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Uranium ETF (URA) and Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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 | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.23 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.38 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 1.33 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.04 | 4.41 | -3.38 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.30 | 17.54 | -15.24 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
URA vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum URA drawdown since its inception was -93.54%, which is greater than XMMO's maximum drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URA and XMMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| URA | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -93.54% | -55.37% | -38.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -31.48% | -8.34% | -23.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -37.81% | -24.93% | -12.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.90% | -27.91% | -9.99% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -61.45% | -36.74% | -24.71% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -48.34% | -1.19% | -47.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -74.94% | -9.44% | -65.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.12% | 2.09% | +12.03% |
Volatility
URA vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison
Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a higher volatility of 17.69% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO) at 9.07%. This indicates that URA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| URA | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.69% | 9.07% | +8.62% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 39.95% | 16.76% | +23.19% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 51.24% | 19.74% | +31.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.96% | 21.62% | +22.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.91% | 22.35% | +15.56% |
URA vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
URA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than XMMO's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
URA vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison
URA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than XMMO's 0.61% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 0.61% | 0.78% | 0.34% | 0.80% | 1.43% | 0.41% | 0.61% | 0.60% | 0.19% | 0.21% | 0.22% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
URA and XMMO have a correlation of 0.54, 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 XMMO (9.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URA dropped -93.54% vs XMMO's -55.37%.
On 10-year performance, XMMO leads with 19.95% vs 15.90% for URA. On fees, XMMO is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, XMMO has been the lower-risk option at 9.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, XMMO has performed better with a 19.95% return vs 15.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XMMO is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.
URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 0.61% for XMMO.
URA is categorized as Uranium, while XMMO is Momentum. URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, while XMMO tracks S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for URA and 0.35% for XMMO.
XMMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 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 XMMO
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