XYLG vs. URA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

XYLG (Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XYLG is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Half BuyWrite Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XYLG returned 10.07%/yr vs 20.40%/yr for URA. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

XYLG vs. URA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XYLG achieves a 6.31% return, which is significantly lower than URA's 6.67% return.

XYLG

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: -0.48%
• YTD: 6.31%
• 6M: 5.87%
• 1Y: 19.67%
• 3Y*: 15.97%
• 5Y*: 10.07%
• 10Y*: —

URA

• 1D: -2.61%
• 1M: -6.90%
• YTD: 6.67%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 27.21%
• 3Y*: 34.68%
• 5Y*: 20.40%
• 10Y*: 16.42%

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

XYLG vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	6.31%	12.93%	22.31%	18.16%	-15.46%	23.81%	12.13%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	6.67%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	57.57%	31.80%

Correlation

The correlation between XYLG and URA 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	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2020	0.49

The correlation between XYLG and URA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

XYLG vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XYLG	URA
Technology	39.2%	0.9%
Financial Services	11.6%	-
Communication Services	10.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	-
Healthcare	8.4%	-
Industrials	7.9%	22.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	-
Energy	3.1%	64.2%
Utilities	2.6%	7.4%
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	4.8%

Return for Risk

XYLG vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

XYLG

XYLG Risk / Return Rank: 66
XYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
XYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
XYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
XYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
XYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 19
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 19
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

XYLG vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). 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.

	XYLG	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	0.53	+1.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	1.09	+1.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.13	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	0.87	+1.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.98	1.87	+12.11

XYLG vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XYLG and URA, 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

XYLG vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XYLG drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XYLG and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	XYLG	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.30%	-93.54%	+72.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.93%	-31.48%	+24.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.42%	-37.81%	+20.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.30%	-37.90%	+16.60%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.84%	-48.27%	+46.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-74.90%	+70.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.41%	14.58%	-13.17%

Volatility

XYLG vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) is 3.50%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 17.86%. This indicates that XYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XYLG	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.50%	17.86%	-14.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.15%	39.53%	-31.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.95%	51.33%	-41.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.07%	43.92%	-29.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.86%	37.95%	-24.09%

XYLG vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

XYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

XYLG vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

XYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.25%, more than URA's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
URA Global X Uranium ETF	4.57%	4.88%	2.86%	6.07%	0.76%	5.84%	1.69%	1.66%	0.44%	2.03%	7.28%	1.96%
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	13.25%	13.94%	23.65%	4.90%	6.43%	7.40%	1.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XYLG and URA in my portfolio?

XYLG and URA 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.

Which is riskier, XYLG or URA?

URA has higher volatility (17.86%) compared to XYLG (3.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XYLG dropped -21.30% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, XYLG or URA?

On 5-year performance, URA leads with 20.40% vs 10.07% for XYLG. On fees, XYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, XYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XYLG or URA?

Over the 5-year period, URA has performed better with a 20.40% return vs 10.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XYLG or URA?

XYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

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

XYLG has the higher dividend yield at 13.25%, compared with 4.57% for URA.

What is the main difference between XYLG and URA?

XYLG is categorized as Derivative Income, while URA is Uranium. XYLG tracks Cboe S&P 500 Half BuyWrite Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for XYLG and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 0.53), 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.