ZCBF vs. URA
ZCBF (Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2034 ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZCBF is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Zero Coupon U.S. Treasury STRIPS 2034 Maturity Index, while URA is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZCBF charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.
Performance
ZCBF vs. URA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
ZCBF
- 1D
- -0.59%
- 1M
- -1.29%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
URA
- 1D
- -9.88%
- 1M
- -22.23%
- YTD
- 6.04%
- 6M
- -0.93%
- 1Y
- 43.12%
- 3Y*
- 33.77%
- 5Y*
- 18.83%
- 10Y*
- 15.20%
ZCBF vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
ZCBF Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2034 ETF | -1.01% |
URA Global X Uranium ETF | -9.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZCBF and URA is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 8, 2026 | 0.26 |
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
ZCBF vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank
ZCBF
URA
ZCBF vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2034 ETF (ZCBF) 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ZCBF | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 0.85 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.40 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.42 | -0.07 | -0.36 |
Drawdowns
ZCBF vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZCBF drawdown since its inception was -4.66%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZCBF and URA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZCBF | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.66% | -93.54% | +88.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -28.43% | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.67% | -48.58% | +44.91% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.85% | -74.99% | +73.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 13.56% | — |
Volatility
ZCBF vs. URA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZCBF | URA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 16.84% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 39.54% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.78% | 51.13% | -45.35% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.78% | 43.81% | -38.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.78% | 37.83% | -32.05% |
ZCBF vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZCBF has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZCBF vs. URA - Dividend Comparison
ZCBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than URA's 4.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
URA Global X Uranium ETF | 4.60% | 4.88% | 2.86% | 6.07% | 0.76% | 5.84% | 1.69% | 1.66% | 0.44% | 2.03% | 7.28% | 1.96% |
ZCBF Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2034 ETF | 1.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZCBF and URA have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZCBF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZCBF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.
URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 1.70% for ZCBF.
ZCBF is categorized as Government Bonds, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. ZCBF tracks FTSE Zero Coupon U.S. Treasury STRIPS 2034 Maturity Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for ZCBF and 0.69% for URA.
Find the right allocation for ZCBF and URA
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