NLR
Generally safe
Limited data
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.
Updated November 6, 2026
How these figures are calculated: methodology.
Best for
- NLRInvestors who want targeted nuclear-energy exposure and accept its concentration.
- URAInvestors who want higher current income (6.45% vs 3.58% for NLR).
Price and total return
Compare the same available dates. Add a ticker or benchmark below; these controls change the chart only. The snapshot and article describe the original comparison.
Interactive history loads here. The snapshot and period returns remain available when chart history cannot be loaded.
Distribution Safety Score
An estimate of distribution reliability, not price or principal safety, a probability, or a guarantee. Score methodology.
URA
Elevated risk
Limited data
Score snapshot as of . Method 1.11.
Side-by-side snapshot
| 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 | $88.44 as of November 6, 2026 | $32.34 as of November 6, 2026 |
| Distribution rate | 3.58% | 6.45% |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 3.58% | 6.44% |
| 30-day SEC yield | — | -0.15% |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | 61 | 33 |
| Safety-Adjusted Yield | 2.18% | 2.13% |
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.69% |
| AUM | $3.01B | $4.59B |
| 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 | 1.54 | 2.07 |
| Last dividend | $3.17 | $2.08 |
| Ex-dividend date | 12/22/2025 | 12/30/2025 |
Total returns
100% reinvested · ex-date convention. Period returns use this fixed assumption, independent of chart settings. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year.
NLR has lagged URA over the trailing twelve months, posting a -38.88% total return against -35.13%. The lead holds up over 10 years too: URA has compounded at 13.82% a year, against 8.98% for NLR. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD cumulative | 1Y cumulative | 3Y annualized | 5Y annualized | 10Y annualized | Since Nov 2010 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NLR | -31.80% | -38.88% | 8.62% | 10.95% | 8.98% | 4.66% | 36.9% | 0.11 | 0.16 | -48.5% |
| URA | -27.50% | -35.13% | 9.42% | 5.35% | 13.82% | -4.68% | 43.8% | 0.11 | 0.16 | -49.9% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of November 5, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year. “Since Nov 2010” measures every fund from November 5, 2010 — the start of shared available history — 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.
Distribution rate and SEC yield
| Metric | NLR | URA |
|---|---|---|
| Forward distribution rate | 3.58% | 6.45% |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 3.58% | 6.44% |
| 30-day SEC yield | — | -0.15% |
Total return (price change plus reinvested distributions) is the Total returns section above. A 30-day SEC yield can sit far from the headline distribution rate; both numbers are the fund's own published fields.
Visual comparison
Key metrics
Projected income on $10K
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Bottom lineChoose NLR if you want targeted nuclear-energy exposure and accept its concentration. Choose URA if you want higher current income (6.45% vs 3.58% 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 rate | 3.58% | 6.45% |
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs86
Total AUM$156B
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 a broad range of asset classes, from traditional equities and fixed income to alternatives and digital assets. The firm's lineup encompasses income-focused funds, sector strategies, commodity exposure, municipal bonds, and innovative thematic products covering areas like blockchain, artificial intelligence, and emerging markets. VanEck serves both income-oriented and growth-focused investors with a diversified product suite that extends beyond conventional equity and bond offerings.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on NLR.
ETFs116
Total AUM$89.1B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Global X is known for offering a diverse lineup of thematic and income-focused ETFs that cater to both traditional and alternative investment strategies. Their fund families span income generation through covered call strategies and SuperDividend funds, alongside thematic exposure in areas like digital assets, robotics, and emerging markets, complemented by bond and commodities offerings. The issuer provides broad coverage across sector-specific, risk-managed, and growth-oriented strategies, making their lineup particularly notable for investors seeking specialized exposure beyond conventional equity and fixed-income categories.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on URA.
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 6.45% vs 3.58% 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 ($4.59B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Who should choose each?
Choose NLR
VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF
- Want targeted nuclear-energy exposure and accept the concentration that comes with it.
- Want to keep costs low — a 0.52% expense ratio vs 0.69% for URA.
- Prefer lower market sensitivity — a beta of 1.54 vs 2.07 for URA.
Choose URA
Global X Uranium ETF
- Want higher current income — URA yields 6.45% vs 3.58% for NLR.
- Want targeted nuclear-energy exposure and accept the concentration that comes with it.
Not sure? Use the income calculator and snapshot above to weigh these trade-offs against your own goals.
Top-holdings overlap
Positions that appear in every fund's top 10. Issuers disclose only the largest weights, so this captures the overlap of the concentrated end of each book — not the full portfolios.
5 shared positions
NLR 26.7% of its top-10 weight
URA 43.5% of its top-10 weight
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment at current distribution rates, NLR would pay about $358.00 a year, while URA would pay about $645.00 a year. Both pay annual distributions.
NLR yield3.58%
URA yield6.45%
Annual cash diff on $10K$287.00
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 1.54 for NLR and 2.07 for URA, making NLR the less sensitive to market moves of the two by this measure.
NLR beta1.54
URA beta2.07
Fund details
NLR is managed by VanEck (launched 08/13/2007) with $3.01B in assets. URA is managed by Global X (launched 11/04/2010) with $4.59B in assets.
NLR AUM$3.01B
URA AUM$4.59B
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 3.58% and 6.45% as of November 2026.
What is the current distribution rate for NLR and URA?
NLR currently distributes 3.58% and URA 6.45%, based on fund data updated November 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?
You can, but expect meaningful overlap: 5 of the disclosed top-10 positions are shared (see the holdings-overlap section above). Holding both may double up on the same underlying names rather than diversify.
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 61, URA scores 33, so NLR's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. NLR has also been less sensitive to market moves (beta 1.54 vs 2.07 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 distribution rates, $10,000 in NLR would pay about $358.00 a year. $10,000 in URA would pay about $645.00 a year.
Which has performed better historically, NLR or URA?
NLR has lagged URA over the trailing twelve months, posting a -38.88% total return against -35.13%. The lead holds up over 10 years too: URA has compounded at 13.82% a year, against 8.98% for NLR. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
More comparisons to explore
People also compare NLR with
Popular comparisons
NLR vs URA — at a glance
Generated October 31, 2026.
Overview
NLR and URA are both ETFs that track uranium and nuclear energy companies, but they differ in underlying index, yield strategy, and volatility profile. Both offer direct exposure to the uranium supply chain and nuclear fuel sectors, but with different weightings and rebalancing methodologies.
How they differ
The biggest difference is yield. That higher payout comes with a trade-off: URA carries a 2.07 beta compared to NLR's 1.54, meaning URA amplifies broad market moves by a wider margin. Both track uranium-focused indexes, but the Solactive index underlying URA may weight companies differently than the MVIS index in NLR, which can drive performance divergence over time. URA holds a larger asset base at $4.59B versus $3.01B.
Who each is best for
NLR: Fits investors seeking steady uranium exposure with lower distribution expectations and a cost advantage—appealing for those who view annual payouts as supplemental income rather than the primary return driver.
URA: Designed for income-focused uranium investors comfortable with higher volatility, who value the current yield pickup and a larger asset base over the lower fee structure of competing uranium funds.
Key risks to know
- Index composition drift. NLR and URA track different indexes with different rebalancing rules, so their holdings and sector weightings may diverge significantly. Uranium company valuations can swing sharply based on fuel-cycle sentiment and spot-price moves, amplifying divergence between the two.
- Elevated beta and drawdown risk. URA's beta of 2.07 versus NLR's 1.54 means URA amplifies both upside and downside moves in the overall market. A broad equity correction will likely hit URA harder, compounding the risk of NAV pressure if distributions continue at current rates during weakness.
- Commodity and regulatory exposure. Both funds are deeply sensitive to uranium spot prices, nuclear policy shifts (licensing, waste storage, fuel enrichment rules), and geopolitical uranium supply disruptions. A significant policy reversal or commodity downturn could pressure both valuations and distribution capacity.
- Sustainability of higher yield. URA's 6.45% yield is materially higher than NLR's 3.58%; investigate whether the Solactive index composition and company earnings support that payout or if it relies partly on return-of-capital treatment, which erodes NAV over time.
Bottom line
If you prioritize lower costs and steadier exposure, NLR's 0.52% fee and 1.54 beta fit a long-term holding approach. If you want maximum current income and can tolerate higher market sensitivity, URA's 6.45% distribution appeals to income-focused portfolios—though the 2.07 beta means larger swings in both directions. Past performance does not predict future results, and uranium sector cyclicality means both funds' payouts and valuations can shift sharply with fuel demand and policy changes.
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.
These comparisons follow the Dividend Vision methodology.