URNM vs. CEFS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

URNM (NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - URNM is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the North Shore Global Uranium Mining Index, while CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. URNM is passively managed, while CEFS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, URNM returned 15.58%/yr vs 13.85%/yr for CEFS. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. URNM charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.29%/yr for CEFS.

Performance

URNM vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF (URNM) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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 CEFS's 13.75% return.

URNM

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

CEFS

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: 4.35%
• YTD: 13.75%
• 6M: 15.64%
• 1Y: 25.00%
• 3Y*: 22.04%
• 5Y*: 13.85%
• 10Y*: —

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

URNM vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
URNM NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF	11.97%	40.78%	-14.13%	57.80%	-11.86%	78.32%	68.36%	3.70%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	13.75%	16.67%	23.48%	20.99%	-7.08%	17.86%	3.40%	3.89%

Correlation

The correlation between URNM and CEFS is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2019	0.39

URNM vs. CEFS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	URNM	CEFS
Energy	97.4%	11.2%
Basic Materials	2.6%	1.6%
Communication Services	-	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.8%
Financial Services	-	48.9%
Healthcare	-	4.6%
Industrials	-	6.7%
Real Estate	-	1.2%
Technology	-	12.4%
Utilities	-	4.2%

Return for Risk

URNM vs. CEFS — 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

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 80
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF (URNM) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	2.53	-1.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	3.71	-2.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.48	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.65	4.43	-2.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.59	17.26	-13.67
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. CEFS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URNM Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is lower than the CEFS Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URNM and CEFS, 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	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.03	2.53	-1.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32	1.06	-0.74
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.79	-0.12

Drawdowns

URNM vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URNM drawdown since its inception was -50.78%, which is greater than CEFS's maximum drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for URNM and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	URNM	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.78%	-38.99%	-11.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.04%	-5.67%	-26.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.78%	-13.37%	-37.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.78%	-16.85%	-33.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.82%	-0.51%	-26.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.03%	-3.67%	-14.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.71%	1.45%	+13.26%

Volatility

URNM vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison

NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF (URNM) has a higher volatility of 16.19% compared to Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) at 3.37%. This indicates that URNM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	URNM	CEFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.19%	3.37%	+12.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.32%	8.56%	+31.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.69%	9.95%	+41.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	48.30%	13.08%	+35.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.90%	15.33%	+31.57%

URNM vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison

URNM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 1.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

URNM vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

URNM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, less than CEFS's 7.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	7.10%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%
URNM NorthShore Global Uranium Mining ETF	2.84%	3.18%	3.18%	3.63%	0.00%	6.70%	2.57%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both URNM and CEFS in my portfolio?

URNM and CEFS have a correlation of 0.36, 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 CEFS?

URNM has higher volatility (16.19%) compared to CEFS (3.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, URNM dropped -50.78% vs CEFS's -38.99%.

Which ETF is better, URNM or CEFS?

On 5-year performance, URNM leads with 15.58% vs 13.85% for CEFS. On fees, URNM is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, CEFS has been the lower-risk option at 3.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, URNM or CEFS?

Over the 5-year period, URNM has performed better with a 15.58% return vs 13.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, URNM or CEFS?

URNM is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.29% for CEFS.

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

CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.10%, compared with 2.84% for URNM.

What is the main difference between URNM and CEFS?

URNM is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while CEFS is Event Driven. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for URNM and 1.29% for CEFS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 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.