PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ZCBG vs. URA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ZCBG vs. URA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2035 ETF (ZCBG) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period


ZCBG

1D
-0.61%
1M
-1.32%
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%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZCBG vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between ZCBG and URA is 0.27, 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

0.27

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

ZCBG vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZCBG

URA
URA Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ZCBG vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2035 ETF (ZCBG) 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.

ZCBG vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ZCBGURADifference

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

-0.39

-0.07

-0.32

Drawdowns

ZCBG vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZCBG drawdown since its inception was -5.11%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZCBG and URA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ZCBGURADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-5.11%

-93.54%

+88.43%

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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.89%

-48.58%

+44.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.99%

-74.99%

+73.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.56%

Volatility

ZCBG vs. URA - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ZCBGURADifference

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

6.33%

51.13%

-44.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.33%

43.81%

-37.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.33%

37.83%

-31.50%

ZCBG vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZCBG has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.


Dividends

ZCBG vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

ZCBG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, less than URA's 4.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
ZCBG
Global X Zero Coupon Bond 2035 ETF
1.74%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


ZCBG and URA have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZCBG is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZCBG 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 1.74% for ZCBG.

ZCBG is categorized as Government Bonds, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. ZCBG tracks FTSE Zero Coupon U.S. Treasury STRIPS 2035 Maturity Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for ZCBG and 0.69% for URA.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ZCBG 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