How do the fees of NLR and NUKZ compare?

NLR charges 0.52% and NUKZ charges 0.85%. On $10,000 that is about $52 a year for NLR and $85 for NUKZ, a difference of roughly $33 every year. Both fees are high compared with broad market ETFs, which is typical of thematic funds with smaller asset bases.

What index does each fund track?

NLR tracks the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy index, a concentrated basket of 28 companies across nuclear utilities, uranium miners and equipment providers. NUKZ tracks the VettaFi Nuclear Renaissance Index, which takes a wider view with 53 companies involved in building, fueling and supplying nuclear power.

How much do NLR and NUKZ overlap?

Two names appear in both top 10 lists: CCJ, at 8.03% in NLR and 8.57% in NUKZ, and Fortum (HEL: FORTUM), at 7.31% and 3.61%. Otherwise the lists differ. NLR leads with CEG, PEG and BWXT, while NUKZ leads with ELE, RR, CEZ and GEV. NUKZ tilts more toward industrials and international utilities.

Which fund pays a higher dividend yield?

NLR yields 2.87% and NUKZ yields 0.92%. NLR's higher yield comes from its large weights in regulated utilities such as CEG and PEG, which pay regular dividends. NUKZ holds more engineering and equipment companies that reinvest profits, so it pays out less.

Which fund suits which goal?

NLR suits investors who want nuclear exposure with a lower fee, a meaningful yield and a longer track record. NUKZ suits investors who want a broader, more international basket that includes reactor builders and suppliers, and who accept a higher fee for that breadth. Both are niche, sector-specific funds.

How do size and liquidity compare?

NLR is larger at about $3.74 billion in net assets, compared with roughly $715 million for NUKZ. NLR launched in August 2007 and NUKZ in January 2024. Smaller and newer funds can have wider spreads, so investors trading NUKZ may want to use limit orders.

How concentrated is each fund?

NLR holds just 28 stocks, and its top 10 make up about 61% of assets, led by CEG at 8.92%. NUKZ holds 53 stocks with the top 10 near 40%, led by CCJ at 8.57%. NLR is the more concentrated fund, so its returns depend more on a handful of utilities and uranium producers.

Can I hold both NLR and NUKZ?

Yes, and with only two shared top-10 names the two funds are fairly complementary. Holding both blends NLR's utility and uranium focus with NUKZ's supplier and engineering exposure. The combination remains a concentrated bet on one theme, and the blended fee is higher than most diversified ETFs.

Are there tax or account differences?

Both are US-listed equity ETFs, but each holds many foreign stocks, which can mean withholding tax inside the fund. Non-US investors may also face withholding on distributions, which matters more for NLR's 2.87% yield. Check how your country and account type treat US-domiciled ETFs holding international shares.

Why are the fees on these funds higher than on broad index ETFs?

Thematic ETFs like NLR and NUKZ hold small, specialized baskets and manage far fewer assets than broad market funds, so fixed costs are spread over a smaller base. Licensing a niche index and trading less liquid international stocks also adds cost. Fees of 0.52% and 0.85% are typical for this category.

NLR vs NUKZ

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in October 2026.

NLR tracks the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy index with 28 holdings for a 0.52% expense ratio and yields 2.87%, while NUKZ tracks the VettaFi Nuclear Renaissance Index with 53 holdings for 0.85% and yields 0.92%. NLR suits investors who want utilities and uranium in one lower-cost fund, and NUKZ suits those who want a wider mix of reactor builders and suppliers. Educational content, not financial advice.

NLR tracks the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy index with 28 holdings for a 0.52% expense ratio and yields 2.87%, while NUKZ tracks the VettaFi Nuclear Renaissance Index with 53 holdings for 0.85...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

NLR

Metric

NUKZ

0.52%

Expense Ratio

0.85%

2.87%

Dividend Yield

0.92%

$3.74B

Net Assets

$715.32M

28

Holdings

53

Aug 13, 2007

Inception Date

Jan 23, 2024

MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy

Index Tracked

VettaFi Nuclear Renaissance Index

Natural Resources

Fund Category

Equity - Miscellaneous Sector

NLR costs about $33.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	NLR	NUKZ
CCJCameco Corporation	8.03%	8.57%
HEL: FORTUMFortum Oyj	7.31%	3.61%

Discover More Comparisons

NLR vs URNM

Compare NLR and URNM ETFs. Review expense ratios, holdings and dividends. NLR tracks a broad nuclear sector; URNM focuses on miners. Educational content.

NLR vs URA

Compare NLR and URA ETFs. Review 0.52% vs 0.69% expenses, 2.86% vs 4.85% yields, and top holdings like CEG and OKLO for nuclear sector research.

Investment Analysis

NLR

Pros

Lower 0.52% expense ratio, about $33 less per $10,000 each year than NUKZ
Higher dividend yield at 2.87%, helped by utilities such as CEG and PEG
Larger fund at about $3.74 billion, trading since 2007

Considerations

Only 28 holdings, so each position carries a meaningful weight
Heavy utility exposure can lag when the nuclear theme is driven by equipment makers
Top holding CEG at 8.92% and CCJ at 8.03% dominate the portfolio

NUKZ

Pros

Broader 53-stock portfolio spanning utilities, uranium, engineering and reactor suppliers
Includes names such as GEV, LON: RR and EMR that NLR's top 10 does not
Wide geographic spread with holdings in Spain, the UK, Czechia, Korea and Japan

Considerations

Higher 0.85% expense ratio, about $85 a year per $10,000
Small fund at about $715 million with a short history since January 2024
Lower dividend yield at 0.92% compared with 2.87% for NLR

Related Market Insights

Why Washington Just Bet $4.2 Billion on Vistra's Reactors

Explore how Vistra's $4.2B US nuclear loan fuels AI data centre power demand. Discover nuclear energy investing with Nemo.