ZAP vs. URA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZAP is a Utilities Equities fund tracking the Global X U.S. Electrification Index, while URA is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ZAP returned 28.84% vs 61.26% for URA. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZAP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

ZAP vs. URA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) 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, ZAP achieves a 15.14% return, which is significantly lower than URA's 17.93% return.

ZAP

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: -3.98%
• YTD: 15.14%
• 6M: 13.19%
• 1Y: 28.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

URA

• 1D: -5.67%
• 1M: -8.00%
• YTD: 17.93%
• 6M: 13.25%
• 1Y: 61.26%
• 3Y*: 39.27%
• 5Y*: 21.39%
• 10Y*: 17.12%

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

ZAP vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	15.14%	21.84%	1.26%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	17.93%	67.18%	-1.06%

Correlation

The correlation between ZAP and URA is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.44

Return for Risk

ZAP vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 60
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 52
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 58

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 34
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 31
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

ZAP vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) 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.

	ZAP	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	1.23	+0.69
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	1.86	+0.75
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.22	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.01	2.17	+1.84
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.25	4.58	+5.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZAP vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZAP Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZAP 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ZAP	URA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	1.23	+0.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.49	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	-0.05	+1.68

Drawdowns

ZAP vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZAP drawdown since its inception was -12.38%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZAP and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZAP	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.38%	-93.54%	+81.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-28.43%	+21.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-37.81%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.90%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.11%	-42.81%	+38.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.57%	-75.01%	+72.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	13.40%	-10.57%

Volatility

ZAP vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) is 6.28%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 15.94%. This indicates that ZAP 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

	ZAP	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.28%	15.94%	-9.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.74%	38.29%	-26.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.13%	50.19%	-35.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.91%	43.62%	-26.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	37.73%	-20.82%

ZAP vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZAP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZAP vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

ZAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, less than URA's 4.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
URA Global X Uranium ETF	4.14%	4.88%	2.86%	6.07%	0.76%	5.84%	1.69%	1.66%	0.44%	2.03%	7.28%	1.96%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.55%	1.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZAP and URA in my portfolio?

ZAP and URA have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZAP or URA?

URA has higher volatility (15.94%) compared to ZAP (6.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZAP dropped -12.38% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, ZAP or URA?

On 1-year performance, URA leads with 61.26% vs 28.84% for ZAP. On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ZAP has been the lower-risk option at 6.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZAP or URA?

Over the 1-year period, URA has performed better with a 61.26% return vs 28.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZAP or URA?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.14%, compared with 1.55% for ZAP.

What is the main difference between ZAP and URA?

ZAP is categorized as Utilities Equities, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. ZAP tracks Global X U.S. Electrification Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for ZAP and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.23), 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.