URNM vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

URNM (NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. URNM is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, URNM returned 52.67% vs 69.39% for CCNR. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. URNM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

URNM vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF (URNM) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, URNM achieves a 11.97% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 27.16% return.

URNM

• 1D: -5.94%
• 1M: -7.38%
• YTD: 11.97%
• 6M: 10.07%
• 1Y: 52.67%
• 3Y*: 27.00%
• 5Y*: 15.58%
• 10Y*: —

CCNR

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 27.16%
• 6M: 30.28%
• 1Y: 69.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

URNM vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
URNM NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF	11.97%	40.78%	-21.48%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	27.16%	46.48%	-8.12%

Correlation

The correlation between URNM and CCNR is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2024	0.46

URNM vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	URNM	CCNR
Energy	97.4%	38.0%
Basic Materials	2.6%	31.6%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.5%
Financial Services	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	7.5%
Real Estate	-	0.5%
Technology	-	4.3%
Utilities	-	8.5%

Return for Risk

URNM vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

URNM

URNM Risk / Return Rank: 29
URNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
URNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
URNM Omega Ratio Rank: 28
URNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
URNM Martin Ratio Rank: 26

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 95
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

URNM vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF (URNM) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). 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.

	URNM	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	3.94	-2.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	4.76	-3.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.65	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.65	10.78	-9.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.59	35.10	-31.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

URNM vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URNM Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is lower than the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URNM and CCNR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	URNM	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.03	3.94	-2.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	1.66	-0.99

Drawdowns

URNM vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URNM drawdown since its inception was -50.78%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URNM and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	URNM	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.78%	-20.06%	-30.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.04%	-6.47%	-25.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.78%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.82%	-1.14%	-25.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.03%	-3.56%	-14.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.71%	1.98%	+12.73%

Volatility

URNM vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF (URNM) has a higher volatility of 16.19% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 4.48%. This indicates that URNM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	URNM	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.19%	4.48%	+11.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.32%	12.77%	+27.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.69%	17.74%	+33.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	48.30%	19.85%	+28.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.90%	19.85%	+27.05%

URNM vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

URNM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

URNM vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

URNM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, more than CCNR's 2.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.74%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URNM NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF	2.84%	3.18%	3.18%	3.63%	0.00%	6.70%	2.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both URNM and CCNR in my portfolio?

URNM and CCNR have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, URNM or CCNR?

URNM has higher volatility (16.19%) compared to CCNR (4.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URNM dropped -50.78% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, URNM or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 69.39% vs 52.67% for URNM. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, URNM or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 69.39% return vs 52.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, URNM or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for URNM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, URNM or CCNR?

URNM has the higher dividend yield at 2.84%, compared with 2.74% for CCNR.

What is the main difference between URNM and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for URNM and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 1.03), 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.