What does the expense ratio mean for NUKZ and URA?

The expense ratio represents the annual fee charged by the fund manager, deducted directly from the fund's assets. For NUKZ, the expense ratio is 0.85%, while for URA, it is 0.69%. This means NUKZ costs 0.16 percentage points more annually than URA. Lower fees generally preserve more of your investment return over time, but you should consider this in the context of the fund's specific strategy and potential performance rather than looking at cost alone.

How do these ETFs track the nuclear sector?

Both funds aim to capture growth in nuclear energy, but their methodologies differ. URA tracks an index, though the specific index name is not available, focusing heavily on uranium producers and related services. NUKZ is described as a Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF, potentially offering a broader look at the sector, including utilities and technology, but its specific index or methodology is also not available. This lack of transparency requires careful reading of fund documents to understand exactly what drives each fund's performance.

What are the inception dates and what do they tell us?

URA was established on November 4, 2010, providing nearly 14 years of operational history and performance data across various market cycles. In contrast, NUKZ is a much newer fund, launched on January 23, 2024, giving it less than two years of history. A longer track record allows investors to assess how a fund reacts during different economic conditions, whereas NUKZ’s recent inception means its long-term stability and strategy effectiveness are still being tested in real-time.

How do the dividend yields of NUKZ and URA compare?

URA currently offers a dividend yield of 4.85%, which is significantly higher than NUKZ's 0.91%. ETFs pass on dividends received from their underlying holdings to investors, after deducting expenses. The substantial difference suggests that URA's holdings generate more current income, likely from established mining companies. NUKZ's lower yield might indicate its holdings prioritize capital growth or are in sectors that reinvest profits, such as technology or newer infrastructure projects, rather than distributing large cash dividends.

Are the top holdings of NUKZ and URA similar?

The top holdings of NUKZ and URA are quite distinct, with no shared companies among their listed top ten positions. NUKZ's top holding is Cameco (CCJ) at 8.57%, followed by industrial and utility names like GE Vernova (GEV) and Dominion Energy (D). URA's top holding is Oklo (OKLO) at 5.63%, alongside uranium producers like Energy Fuels (UEC) and Cameco is not in its top five. This low overlap means owning both funds provides exposure to different segments of the nuclear industry.

What is the difference in net assets between the two funds?

URA is a much larger fund with net assets of $5.9 billion compared to NUKZ's $715 million. Larger assets under management often correlate with better liquidity and tighter bid-ask spreads, making it easier to buy or sell shares without significantly impacting the price. While NUKZ is still considered substantial at $715 million, it is smaller and potentially more susceptible to volatility in trading volume. Investors should weigh the benefits of an established giant like URA against the flexibility or specific strategy of a smaller fund like NUKZ.

Which fund might suit an income-focused vs growth-focused goal?

Neither fund is explicitly designed for a single goal, but their characteristics differ. URA, with its 4.85% yield and focus on established uranium miners, may align more closely with income-oriented strategies seeking current payouts. NUKZ, with its 0.91% yield and broader holdings including technology and utilities, might attract investors focused on long-term capital appreciation within the nuclear renaissance theme. It is crucial to match the fund's inherent payout structure and sector focus with your personal financial objectives rather than assuming performance potential.

How do the sector focuses of NUKZ and URA differ?

NUKZ is categorised as a 'Miscellaneous Sector' ETF, suggesting a broader investment universe that includes utilities and technology firms like Vistra (VST) and Emerson (EMR), alongside uranium miners. URA is categorised as 'Natural Resources', indicating a tighter focus on the raw material side of the nuclear fuel cycle, heavily weighted towards uranium producers and developers like Oklo (OKLO) and Energy Fuels (UEC). This means URA is more directly exposed to uranium price fluctuations, while NUKZ offers diversified exposure across the value chain.

What is the concentration risk in these funds?

Both funds exhibit some level of concentration in their top holdings. NUKZ's largest position, Cameco (CCJ), accounts for 8.57% of the fund, representing a notable single-stock risk. URA's top holding, Oklo (OKLO), is 5.63%, which is also significant given Oklo's status as a speculative nuclear technology firm. High concentration means the fund's performance is heavily influenced by the specific companies, so investors should be aware that a downturn in one of these key holdings could disproportionately impact the overall ETF value.

How do you interpret the 'Issuer' and 'Index' details?

For URA, the issuer is Global X, a well-known ETF provider. For NUKZ, the issuer is listed as not available, which may raise questions about the transparency of the management team for a beginner. Similarly, neither fund currently lists a specific tracked index in this data set. This lack of available information regarding the index methodology means investors cannot easily verify how the securities are selected and weighted, requiring reliance on additional due diligence through official fund prospectuses.

Is this comparison page financial advice?

No, this content is strictly for educational purposes. The comparison of NUKZ and URA highlights factual differences in fees, holdings, and yields to help you understand how to interpret ETF data. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold either fund. Investing in sector-specific ETFs involves risks, including market volatility and concentration risk. You should consult with a qualified financial advisor and review official fund documents before making any investment decisions.

NUKZ vs URA

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

Compare the Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and the Global X Uranium ETF (URA). This page analyses fees, top holdings, dividend yields, and how each fund tracks its market. See the 0.85% expense ratio versus 0.69%, asset sizes, and sector focuses side by side. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare the Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) and the Global X Uranium ETF (URA). This page analyses fees, top holdings, dividend yields, and how each fund tracks its market. See the 0.85% expense ratio ...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

NUKZ

Metric

URA

0.85%

Expense Ratio

0.69%

0.91%

Dividend Yield

4.85%

$715.32M

Net Assets

$5.86B

53

Holdings

61

Jan 23, 2024

Inception Date

Nov 4, 2010

–

Index Tracked

–

Miscellaneous Sector

Fund Category

Natural Resources

URA costs about $16.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

NUKZ vs URNM

Compare NUKZ and URNM on fees (0.85% vs 0.75%), dividends (0.91% vs 3.35%), and holdings. Review assets ($715M vs $1.9B) and inception dates.

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

NUKZ

Pros

Net assets of $715 million support liquidity in this recently established nuclear sector fund.
Dividend yield of 0.91% offers some income within a speculative nuclear growth theme.
Inception date of Jan 23, 2024, allows assessment through recent nuclear market cycles.

Considerations

Expense ratio of 0.85% is relatively high compared to broader sector benchmarks.
Top holding CCJ at 8.57% indicates notable concentration risk in single uranium miner.
Issuer is not available, reducing transparency on fund management quality and oversight.

URA

Pros

Net assets of $5.9 billion suggest strong trading volume and established market presence.
Dividend yield of 4.85% provides significantly higher income than the comparable fund.
Inception date of Nov 4, 2010, demonstrates extensive operational history across cycles.

Considerations

Expense ratio of 0.69% remains relatively high for passive index-tracking ETFs.
Top holding OKLO at 5.63% reflects concentration in speculative nuclear technology firms.
Index tracked is not available, limiting clarity on underlying methodology and rebalancing rules.

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.