ETF Comparison

NLR vs URA: Nuclear Complex, or Uranium Miners?

A head-to-head of VanEck Uranium and Nuclear Energy and Global X Uranium covering miners versus the broader nuclear book.

Data updated September 4, 2026

Best for

NLRInvestors who want broad equity exposure.
URAInvestors who want higher current income (4.52% vs 2.64% for NLR).

Jump to the side-by-side numbers

Visual comparison

Key metrics

Projected income on $10K

Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.

Total returns

NLR has lagged URA over the trailing twelve months, posting a 2.88% total return against 16.74%. The lead holds up over 10 years too: URA has compounded at 16.40% a year, against 12.42% for NLR. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.

Total return and risk statistics by fund. Each row is one fund; each column is one period or statistic.
Symbol	YTD	1Y	3Y	5Y	10Y	Since Nov 2010	Volatility	Sharpe	Sortino	Max drawdown
NLR	-9.84%	2.88%	25.16%	19.57%	12.42%	7.03%	36.1%	0.50	0.72	-37.5%
URA	0.00%	16.74%	28.41%	18.55%	16.40%	-2.32%	43.2%	0.48	0.69	-39.3%

Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of September 4, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; windows of one year or longer are annualized. “Since Nov 2010” measures every fund from November 5, 2010 — the youngest fund's first trading day — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the trailing 3 years. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the trailing 3 years) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.

Side-by-side snapshot

Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric; each column is one fund.
Metric	NLR	URA
Full name	VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF	Global X Uranium ETF
Issuer	VanEck	Global X
Underlying index	MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index	Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index
Last Close	$119.95 as of September 4, 2026	$46.06 as of September 4, 2026
Distribution rate	2.64%	4.52%
Distribution Safety Score™	96	67
Safety-Adjusted Yield	2.53%	3.03%
Expense ratio	0.52%	0.69%
AUM	$4.08B	$6.23B
Distribution frequency	Annual	Annual
Objective	Seeks to replicate the price and yield performance of the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index.	Seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index.
Asset class	Equity	Equity
Inception date	08/13/2007	11/04/2010
Beta	1.16	1.44
Last dividend	$3.166	$2.084
Ex-dividend date	12/22/2025	12/30/2025

Bottom lineChoose NLR if you want broad equity exposure. Choose URA if you want higher current income (4.52% vs 2.64% for NLR).

Nuclear complex versus uranium miners

NLR spans uranium and nuclear-energy names. URA is a miners book. Complex versus miners is the split.

	NLR	URA
Scope	Uranium + nuclear energy	Uranium miners
Expense ratio	0.52%	0.69%
Distribution yield	2.64%	4.52%

Model this comparison:

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Income calculator

See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.

VanEck

ETFs85

Total AUM$165B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

VanEck is known for offering specialized and thematic ETFs across diverse asset classes, including commodities, digital assets, and sector-specific investments. The firm's 22-fund lineup spans income-generating options, covered call strategies, and growth-focused equity funds, with popular tickers including GDX (gold miners), SMH (semiconductors), MOAT (competitive advantage stocks), and HODL (bitcoin). VanEck distinguishes itself through niche exposure areas such as digital assets, commodities, and thematic investing strategies, complemented by traditional bond and municipal bond offerings.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on NLR.

See all VanEck ETFs

Global X

ETFs116

Total AUM$95.8B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

Global X is known for developing thematic and alternative investment ETFs with a strong emphasis on income-generating strategies. Their 37-fund lineup spans diverse categories including covered call funds, SuperDividend income products, digital assets, commodities, and sector-specific investments, alongside traditional bond and risk-managed income options. Notable tickers like DIV, MLPA, and BCCC reflect their specialization in high-yield and alternative income strategies, positioning them as a provider focused on investors seeking yield-oriented and thematically-driven exposure.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on URA.

See all Global X ETFs

Want to go deeper?

Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — free to start, no credit card.

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Quick verdict

NLR (VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both annual-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.

URA offers the higher yield at 4.52% vs 2.64% for NLR. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.

NLR is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.52% compared to 0.69%.

They have different reference exposures: NLR is linked to MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index while URA is linked to Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, which means their performance drivers differ.

URA is the larger fund by assets ($6.23B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.

Who should choose each?

Choose NLR

VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF

Want broad equity exposure.
Want to keep costs low — a 0.52% expense ratio vs 0.69% for URA.
Prefer lower volatility — a beta of 1.2 vs 1.4 for URA.

Choose URA

Global X Uranium ETF

Want higher current income — URA yields 4.52% vs 2.64% for NLR.
Want broad equity exposure.

Not sure? Use the income calculator and snapshot above to weigh these trade-offs against your own goals.

Still deciding? Track NLR & URA for free

Create a free Dividend Vision account to keep them on a watchlist, get notified when they declare dividends, and see how much income they would add to your portfolio.

Add to my watchlist See what a free account includes

Deep dive

Yield & income

On a $10,000 investment, NLR would generate roughly $22.00/month, while URA would produce $37.67/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay annual distributions.

NLR yield2.64%

URA yield4.52%

Monthly diff on $10K$15.67

Cost & efficiency

Over 10 years on $10,000, NLR would cost approximately $520 in fees vs $690 for URA (simplified, not compounded). The $170.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.

NLR ER0.52%

URA ER0.69%

Strategy & risk

NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index with a nuclear approach, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index with an energy approach. Beta is 1.16 for NLR and 1.44 for URA, making NLR the less volatile of the two by this measure.

NLR beta1.16

URA beta1.44

Fund details

NLR is managed by VanEck (launched 08/13/2007) with $4.08B in assets. URA is managed by Global X (launched 11/04/2010) with $6.23B in assets.

NLR AUM$4.08B

URA AUM$6.23B

Ready to act?

Open in Comparator Model in portfolio See pricing

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between NLR and URA?

NLR (VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF) holds uranium and nuclear-energy names. URA (Global X Uranium ETF) holds uranium miners. Nuclear complex versus miners is the split. Cost is 0.52% versus 0.69%; distributions are 2.64% and 4.52% as of September 2026.

What is the current distribution rate for NLR and URA?

NLR currently distributes 2.64% and URA 4.52%, based on fund data updated September 2026. Distribution rate moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.

Is NLR or URA better for dividend income?

It depends on your goals. URA currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.

Can I hold both NLR and URA?

Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.

Is NLR or URA safer?

By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — NLR scores 96, URA scores 67, so NLR's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. NLR has also shown lower price volatility (beta 1.16 vs 1.44 for URA). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee.

Which has lower fees, NLR or URA?

NLR has an expense ratio of 0.52% while URA charges 0.69%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.

How much income does $10,000 in NLR vs URA generate?

At current rates, $10,000 in NLR would generate roughly $22.00 per month ($264.00 annually). The same in URA would produce about $37.67 per month ($452.00 annually).

Which has performed better historically, NLR or URA?

More comparisons to explore

People also compare NLR with

Popular comparisons

NLR vs URA — at a glance

Generated September 5, 2026.

Overview

NLR and URA are both equity ETFs tracking uranium and nuclear energy producers, but they differ in index selection, volatility profile, and income generation. Both offer broad exposure to the sector—mining, enrichment, and reactor operators—but their underlying indexes weight constituents differently, resulting in distinct risk and return profiles.

How they differ

The biggest difference is volatility: URA carries a 1.44 beta versus NLR's 1.16, meaning URA amplifies market swings more sharply. This stems partly from index construction—the Solactive index (URA) tilts toward pure-play uranium miners, while MVIS (NLR) includes more diversified nuclear operators, which smooths drawdowns. Second, URA yields 4.52%, nearly 2 percentage points above NLR's 2.64%, reflecting higher constituent dividend payments or different index methodology. Third, NLR's expense ratio is 0.52% compared to URA's 0.69%, and NLR holds a larger asset base at $4.08B versus $6.23B, offering slightly better liquidity and lower fund-level drag.

Who each is best for

NLR: Fits investors seeking smoother uranium-sector exposure with lower volatility; the more defensive index composition appeals to those with moderate risk tolerance or longer time horizons over which to weather commodity cycles.

URA: Designed for investors comfortable with higher equity beta and willing to accept larger price swings in exchange for higher current income; suits those who view the pure-play uranium tilt as a strategic advantage during fuel-cycle recoveries.

Key risks to know

Commodity exposure: Both funds are highly sensitive to uranium spot prices and nuclear energy policy; a sustained drop in uranium demand or prolonged political opposition to nuclear expansion would pressure both holdings significantly.

Concentration in mining: URA's heavier tilt toward uranium miners (versus NLR's broader nuclear mix) creates higher sensitivity to mining-cycle volatility, input costs, and project delays—factors that affect pure-play uranium stocks more acutely than diversified nuclear operators.

Beta divergence: URA's 1.44 beta versus NLR's 1.16 means URA will decline faster in market downturns and recover faster in rallies; investors should assess whether this volatility profile aligns with their actual risk tolerance.

Index-specific tracking: The MVIS and Solactive methodologies may diverge over time as their weighting rules and constituent selection criteria differ; overlap in holdings is likely but not guaranteed, so performance correlation is not assured.

Bottom line

If you prioritize lower volatility and a lighter cost structure, NLR's broader nuclear energy exposure and 0.52% fee stand out. If you're targeting higher current income and can tolerate 1.44 beta, URA's 4.52% yield and pure-play uranium lean offer a different tradeoff. Both track cyclical commodities, and past performance in a uranium recovery doesn't predict future results.

AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.

Learn the method

The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.

Still deciding? Compare them against your own portfolio

See how each ETF fits alongside your real holdings — forecast future income, analyze overlap, and gauge risk. Start a free 7-day Dividend Vision trial and make the call with your full portfolio in view.

Start Free Open in Comparator Browse Screener