What is the difference between NLR and URNM regarding their investment focus?

NLR tracks a broad nuclear sector index, including utilities, technology and industrial companies, while URNM focuses strictly on uranium miners. This structural distinction means that the funds' performance may diverge despite similar sector classification. NLR tends to provide a more diversified exposure across the nuclear value chain. Conversely, URNM acts as a direct play on uranium mining activity. Investors should understand that the funds operate in a related sector but have distinct exposure profiles.

How do the fund sizes of NLR and URNM compare?

NLR manages $3.7 billion in net assets, while URNM has $1.9 billion. A larger AUM often supports stable trading liquidity and reduces fund-specific risks. Although both ETFs are considered large, NLR's bigger size is reflected in its liquidity and market establishment. Conversely, URNM's smaller AUM may lead to greater trading volatility, particularly with large buy/sell orders. Investors should consider the fund size as a factor in liquidity risk and price stability when comparing ETFs.

How do the expense ratios of NLR and URNM differ, and what does that mean over time?

NLR has an expense ratio of 0.52%, whereas URNM's is 0.75%, a difference of 0.23 percentage points. Over time, higher expenses diminish net returns, which can impact long-term compounding. For example, on a $10,000 investment, NLR's annual fee is $52, compared with $75 for URNM. Although the fees appear small, consistent costs compound, increasing the gap in asset growth over 10 to 20 years. Investors should weigh this fee difference against each ETF's risk-reward profile when planning long-term investments.

What are the shared holdings between NLR and URNM, and what does the concentration imply?

Both NLR and URNM share three top-10 holdings: Cameco (CCJ), Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) and Ur-Energy (UUUU). However, concentration varies: NLR's largest holding is Constellation Energy at 8.92%, compared to URNM's Cameco at 20.25%. The overlap indicates that both funds benefit from major uranium producers. URNM's higher concentration means it is riskier; a single stock's downturn could severely affect its price, unlike NLR's broader diversification.

How do the dividend yields and distributions of NLR and URNM compare?

NLR has a dividend yield of 2.86%, while URNM offers 3.35%. URNM's slightly higher yield may appear advantageous. However, both ETFs' yields fluctuate as they reinvest or distribute earnings depending on fund strategy. Distributions may vary from quarter to quarter and are not guaranteed. Investors must recognise that higher yields don't always reflect superior performance; URNM's higher yield could also suggest that it distributes more capital, unlike NLR's reinvestment approach. Consider the distribution method and sustainability when evaluating yields.

Which fund suits a diversified nuclear investment strategy?

NLR may better suit a diversified nuclear investment strategy because it includes utilities, technology companies and industrials alongside uranium miners. Its holdings reflect the broader nuclear value chain, mitigating overexposure to a single subsector. Conversely, URNM is better suited for investors seeking pure-play exposure to uranium miners. URNM's concentration can magnify returns but also increases volatility. A strategy balancing stability and sector-wide trends would benefit from NLR's diversified approach, whereas investors focused on uranium mining trends would consider URNM.

How does the historical performance and age of the funds differ?

NLR was launched in August 2007, providing over 18 years of market history and established liquidity. Its longevity ensures greater predictability and investor confidence. In contrast, URNM launched in December 2019, with approximately 6 years of history. The shorter history means fewer cycles have been tested, potentially increasing unpredictability in performance or market response during economic downturns. For conservative investors seeking proven track records, NLR's extensive history may be an attractive consideration.

What are the potential risks associated with holding either of these ETFs?

Both NLR and URNM have exposure to cyclical markets, with uranium miners inherently linked to commodity prices and energy demand. NLR faces sector risks due to its utility holdings, which are sensitive to government regulation and energy policy changes. URNM's concentrated holdings in miners introduce volatility and commodity price dependency. For example, if uranium prices fall, URNM's portfolio would likely face significant downturns due to its 20.25% Cameco exposure. Diversification is a key to mitigating these risks.

How can I assess which fund is more liquid for my trading strategy?

Liquidity can be evaluated through the fund's net assets and trading volume. NLR, with $3.7 billion, offers substantial liquidity, likely resulting in tighter bid-ask spreads and lower slippage when trading. URNM's smaller AUM of $1.9 billion may lead to wider spreads and higher transaction costs, especially during market volatility. To verify trading liquidity, monitor average daily volumes and spreads on platforms such as Yahoo Finance or your brokerage. A fund with stable liquidity is easier to enter or exit without significantly affecting the price.

What considerations should beginners keep in mind when deciding between these ETFs?

Beginners should consider fee differences, concentration risk and fund objectives when choosing between NLR and URNM. NLR's diversified approach and lower fees may make it suitable for those prioritising stability and long-term growth in the nuclear sector. URNM is more suitable for investors seeking aggressive exposure to uranium mining, accepting greater volatility for potential upside. Additionally, understanding how each fund tracks its sector, the historical performance and liquidity of the assets will support informed decision-making. Always verify whether the ETF aligns with your investment goals.

What is the key difference between the fund tracking structures for NLR and URNM?

NLR tracks a broad nuclear index, providing diversified exposure to utilities, industrials and technology within the sector. URNM specifically targets uranium miners, offering concentrated exposure to companies extracting uranium. As a result, NLR may benefit from utilities' stable cash flows, while URNM's performance ties to miner stock trends. Index tracking details for both are not available, but their structural focus highlights how exposure differs in practice.

How do concentration levels in NLR and URNM affect portfolio risk?

NLR's top three holdings (CEG 8.92%, CCJ 8.03%, PEG 6.50%) demonstrate moderate concentration, spreading risk across multiple names. URNM has 20.25% in Cameco alone, amplifying single-stock risk. High concentration means a poor performance by a key holding can sharply impact the fund's NAV. For example, a 10% drop in Cameco could reduce URNM's assets by over 2%, whereas NLR's broader holdings mitigate similar volatility. Diversification reduces the potential harm from idiosyncratic events like company-specific earnings misses or regulatory changes.

NLR vs URNM

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

Compare VanEck Uranium and Nuclear (NLR) and Sprott Uranium Miners (URNM). This page reviews their fees, holdings and dividends. NLR tracks a broad nuclear sector index, while URNM focuses on miners; index tracking details for both are not available. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare VanEck Uranium and Nuclear (NLR) and Sprott Uranium Miners (URNM). This page reviews their fees, holdings and dividends. NLR tracks a broad nuclear sector index, while URNM focuses on miners; ...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

NLR

Metric

URNM

0.52%

Expense Ratio

0.75%

2.86%

Dividend Yield

3.35%

$3.74B

Net Assets

$1.92B

28

Holdings

31

Aug 13, 2007

Inception Date

Dec 3, 2019

–

Index Tracked

–

Natural Resources

Fund Category

Natural Resources

NLR costs about $23.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	NLR	URNM
CCJCameco Corporation	8.03%	20.25%
UECUranium Energy Corp.	4.97%	4.49%
UUUUEnergy Fuels Inc.	4.05%	4.37%

Discover More Comparisons

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.

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.

URA vs URNM

Compare URA and URNM ETFs. Analyse 0.69% and 0.75% expense ratios, 4.85% and 3.35% yields, holdings, tracking methods, and assets for informed research.

Investment Analysis

NLR

Pros

The fund holds $3.7 billion in net assets, offering substantial liquidity for trading.
With a $3.7 billion AUM, this ETF is large and liquid.
This ETF has a long history from 2007 and is well established.

Considerations

Uranium miners have high concentration; CCJ, CEG, and PEG are the top three holdings.
Uranium miners are cyclical stocks with high volatility.
The dividend yield is 2.86%, which is lower than some alternative uranium investments.

URNM

Pros

Offers a slightly higher dividend yield at $3.35 billion in net assets.
This fund focuses on miners and has strong potential for significant upside.
With $1.9 billion in AUM, it is large enough for reasonable trading liquidity.

Considerations

It has a higher expense ratio of 0.75% compared to $3.35 billion.
It has very heavy concentration; 20.25% is in one stock alone.
Smaller fund size at $1.9 billion may impact liquidity and stability compared to larger peers.

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.