What is the main difference between NLR and URA?

NLR, managed by VanEck, includes utility companies alongside uranium producers, providing stability. URA, managed by Global X, focuses more directly on mining and energy companies, offering higher exposure to uranium prices. Both funds serve as investment vehicles for the nuclear and uranium sectors but differ in their approach to risk and sector exposure.

How do expense ratios differ between NLR and URA?

NLR has an expense ratio of 0.52%, while URA has a 0.69% expense ratio. Over time, this difference in costs can affect returns. Although the difference seems small, lower fees can compound over long investment periods, making NLR potentially more cost-effective for long-term investors seeking to minimise annual charges.

What does the dividend yield difference imply for investors?

URA offers a higher dividend yield of 4.85% compared to NLR's 2.86%. This makes URA more attractive for income-focused investors seeking cash flow from investments. However, higher yields may also correlate with riskier investments. Investors should balance the appeal of dividends with other aspects like sector stability and long-term growth potential.

Which fund has more assets under management?

URA has larger net assets of $5.9 billion compared to NLR's $3.7 billion. Larger asset sizes typically offer greater liquidity, enabling easier buying and selling of shares. Investors might find URA more accessible due to this higher liquidity, though it is essential to consider other factors like sector focus and expenses.

What are the top holdings of NLR?

NLR's top holdings include Constellation Energy (CEG) at 8.92%, Cameco (CCJ) at 8.03%, and PSEG (PEG) at 6.50%, among others. This blend of utility companies and uranium producers offers NLR stability alongside sector exposure. The fund's longer history since 2007 provides a more established track record for investors evaluating its performance.

What are the top holdings of URA?

URA includes holdings like Oklo Inc (OKLO) at 5.63%, Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) at 4.64%, and others. Unlike NLR, URA's portfolio is focused more on direct exposure to uranium mining and energy companies, potentially capturing more price upside. Its inception in 2010 positions it as a more recent addition to the sector.

How should investors assess liquidity between NLR and URA?

Investors often consider the net assets of a fund to gauge liquidity. With URA's $5.9 billion in net assets, it offers higher liquidity than NLR, which has $3.7 billion. Higher liquidity can make it easier to enter or exit positions without affecting the price, but it's crucial to balance this with sector-specific exposures and costs.

What is the significance of URA's dividend yield?

URA's higher dividend yield of 4.85% could attract income-seeking investors, but it's essential to examine the sustainability and source of these dividends. A focus on mining companies might mean yield variability depending on commodity prices and operational efficiencies, contrasting with NLR's utility inclusion.

Are there transparency issues with NLR or URA?

For both NLR and URA, the tracked indexes and specific sector weights are not available. This lack of transparency can make it challenging to assess the exact strategies employed by the funds, potentially requiring additional due diligence by investors to understand the underlying holdings and sector exposures.

What role does fund inception date play in comparison?

NLR's inception in 2007 provides a longer track record, which might offer insights into its behaviour across different market cycles. URA, with an inception in 2010, provides a shorter history but a more recent focus on uranium prices and mining. Investors might use these dates to consider how each fund has adapted to market changes over time.

NLR vs URA

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

Compare VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) vs Global X Uranium ETF (URA). This page details their 0.52% and 0.69% expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, top holdings, and how each tracks the sector, plus their respective index focus. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) vs Global X Uranium ETF (URA). This page details their 0.52% and 0.69% expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, top holdings, and how each tracks the s...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

NLR

Metric

URA

0.52%

Expense Ratio

0.69%

2.86%

Dividend Yield

4.85%

$3.74B

Net Assets

$5.86B

28

Holdings

61

Aug 13, 2007

Inception Date

Nov 4, 2010

–

Index Tracked

–

Natural Resources

Fund Category

Natural Resources

NLR costs about $17.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	NLR	URA
UECUranium Energy Corp.	4.97%	4.64%
LEUCentrus Energy Corp.	4.73%	2.68%
SMRNuScale Power Corporation	4.50%	2.81%
OKLOOklo Inc.	4.15%	5.63%
XEX-Energy, Inc.	2.48%	2.77%

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 NUKZ

Compare NLR and NUKZ nuclear ETFs: 0.52% vs 0.85% expense ratio, 28 vs 53 holdings, 2.87% vs 0.92% yield, and only CCJ and Fortum shared in the top 10.

NUKZ vs URA

Compare NUKZ and URA. Analyse 0.85% vs 0.69% fees, $715m vs $5.9b assets, 0.91% vs 4.85% yields, and top holdings for nuclear sector investments.

Investment Analysis

NLR

Pros

NLR offers a lower expense ratio of 0.52% than URA, reducing annual costs for investors.
It includes major utility companies like CEG and PEG, providing stability alongside nuclear fuel producers.
With a track record from 2007, NLR provides a longer history of performance in nuclear energy.

Considerations

The index tracked by NLR is not available, limiting transparency regarding its specific methodology.
Sector weights for NLR are not available, making it difficult to assess its precise industry exposure.
NLR's dividend yield of 2.86% is lower than URA's, potentially making it less attractive to income-focused investors.

URA

Pros

URA delivers a higher dividend yield of 4.85%, appealing to investors seeking income from nuclear investments.
It tracks a broader universe of mining and energy companies, capturing more direct uranium price upside.
As one of the largest uranium ETFs with $5.9 billion in net assets, URA offers high liquidity.

Considerations

The expense ratio of URA is 0.69%, which is higher than NLR's, increasing the cost of ownership.
The index tracked by URA is not available, limiting clarity on its specific investment strategy.
Sector weights for URA are not available, making it difficult to assess its precise industry exposure.

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.