What is the primary difference in expense ratios between URA and URNM?

URA charges an annual operating fee of 0.69%, whereas URNM has a slightly higher fee of 0.75%. This 0.06 percentage point difference may not significantly impact returns over short periods but can accumulate over longer investment horizons. Investors should consider this as a minor cost factor alongside other structural differences when comparing these two uranium-focused exchange-traded funds.

How do the index tracking methodologies of these uranium ETFs compare?

The specific index methodologies for URA and URNM are not publicly available, which limits direct comparison of their tracking approaches. However, URNM is known to follow a physical metals approach linked to the Sprott Uranium Miners Index, while URA’s structure remains broader with 69 holdings. Without full methodology transparency, investors rely on observed holdings and fees.

What does net asset size imply for liquidity in URA and URNM?

URA has a substantially larger asset base of $5.9 billion compared to URNM's $1.9 billion. Larger funds like URA typically offer better liquidity, meaning shares can be bought or sold with lower price impact. While URNM is still accessible, its smaller size might pose minor constraints for large institutional transactions, though likely minimal for retail investors.

How concentrated are the top holdings in URA versus URNM?

URNM exhibits higher concentration, with its top holding, Cameco (CCJ), comprising 20.25% of assets. In contrast, URA’s largest position, Oklo (OKLO), accounts for only 5.63%. This means URNM is more sensitive to the performance of a single company, whereas URA's broader spread reduces immediate reliance on any one stock, potentially offering more diversified exposure within the sector.

Which fund offers a higher dividend yield, and what does this mean?

URA provides a dividend yield of 4.85%, significantly higher than URNM's 3.35%. For income-oriented investors, this difference means URA generates more cash flow from distributions relative to its share price. However, higher yields can sometimes reflect different portfolio compositions or payout policies, so the income stream should be viewed within the broader context of total return and sector exposure.

What types of investing goals are typically associated with each fund?

URA, with its broader 69-holding structure and higher income yield, may align with goals focused on diversified sector exposure and regular income generation. URNM, tracking a specialised mining strategy with a strong top holding, might suit those seeking targeted exposure to leading uranium miners. Investors should assess these characteristics against their own objectives for growth, income, or concentration tolerance.

Do URA and URNM hold any identical top-ten companies?

Yes, both funds list UEC in their top-ten holdings. For URA, UEC represents 4.64% of assets, while for URNM, it accounts for 4.49%. This shared exposure indicates both funds include this key uranium company. However, their overall portfolios differ significantly, with URA holding many more stocks and URNM concentrating more heavily on a few major players.

How do the inception dates of URA and URNM affect their track records?

URA was launched on 4 November 2010, offering a much longer track record than URNM, which began on 3 December 2019. This difference means URA has experienced more market cycles, including various phases of uranium price volatility. Newer funds like URNM may lack extensive historical data, requiring investors to look closely at their current composition and management strategy.

Is a 0.06% fee difference material over a ten-year period?

A 0.06% fee difference results in a 0.6% cumulative cost gap over ten years, excluding compounding effects. While modest compared to the funds' potential volatility from uranium prices, it is not negligible. For small retail positions, the impact is minor. For larger portfolios, this cost differential could influence net returns, so it should be considered alongside other structural and performance factors.

What disclaimer applies to the educational content on this ETF comparison page?

This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Figures for URA and URNM, including fees, yields, and holdings, are sourced from public data as of 22 September 2026 and may change. Investors should conduct their own research, considering personal circumstances and risk tolerance, before making any investment decisions. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

URA vs URNM

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

Compare URA and URNM. This page details their fees, holdings, dividends and market tracking. URA has a 0.69% expense ratio and 4.85% yield. URNM has a 0.75% expense ratio and 3.35% yield. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare URA and URNM. This page details their fees, holdings, dividends and market tracking. URA has a 0.69% expense ratio and 4.85% yield. URNM has a 0.75% expense ratio and 3.35% yield. Educational ...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

URA

Metric

URNM

0.69%

Expense Ratio

0.75%

4.85%

Dividend Yield

3.35%

$5.86B

Net Assets

$1.92B

61

Holdings

31

Nov 4, 2010

Inception Date

Dec 3, 2019

–

Index Tracked

–

Natural Resources

Fund Category

Natural Resources

URA costs about $6.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	URA	URNM
UECUranium Energy Corp.	4.64%	4.49%

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.

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.

Investment Analysis

URA

Pros

The fund boasts a large asset base of $5.9 billion, potentially aiding liquidity.
It offers a substantial dividend yield of 4.85%, providing significant income generation.
It maintains a broad structure with 69 holdings, reducing reliance on any single firm.

Considerations

Its annual operating fee of 0.69% is elevated compared with mainstream commodity trackers.
The top position holds 5.63% of assets, which limits immediate concentration risk.
The index methodology is not available, hindering full assessment of the selection rules.

URNM

Pros

The fund charges a competitive operating fee of 0.75% for its specialised mining strategy.
A strong top holding weight of 20.25% aligns the portfolio closely with uranium equities.
It provides exposure to the Sprott Uranium Miners Index via a physical metals approach.

Considerations

Its smaller net assets of $1.9 billion could create liquidity constraints for some investors.
A lower yield of 3.35% might appeal less to those seeking regular income streams.
The high top holding weight of 20.25% increases vulnerability to single-name performance issues.

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.