NLR vs URA

Key Takeaways

• NLR tracks the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index and spans the entire nuclear value chain — from uranium miners to reactor builders and regulated electric utilities — with roughly 29 holdings.
• URA tracks the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index and skews heavily toward pure-play uranium miners and physical uranium trusts across more than 55 holdings.
• Cost differs meaningfully: NLR carries a 0.52% net expense ratio, versus 0.69% for URA, giving NLR a durable structural cost advantage.
• Risk profiles diverge sharply — URA concentrates about a quarter of assets in a single miner, while NLR spreads exposure more evenly and adds lower-volatility utility exposure.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: NLR — its lower cost, broader diversification, and balanced value-chain exposure make it the more structurally resilient choice.

Introduction

Nuclear energy has re-entered the mainstream investment conversation as data-center electricity demand, decarbonization targets, and energy-security concerns converge. Investors now have multiple ways to express this theme, and two of the most popular vehicles are the VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) and the Global X Uranium ETF (URA). Although both funds sit under the uranium-nuclear umbrella, they are not direct substitutes. This ETF comparison examines how their sector exposure, cost structure, and relative positioning differ — and which one a data-driven approach would favor today.

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) Overview

NLR is a passively managed, non-diversified ETF that seeks to replicate the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Rather than concentrating solely on miners, the fund spans the full nuclear value chain, holding roughly 29 positions across uranium producers, reactor component manufacturers, and regulated utilities. Its net expense ratio is 0.52%.

Top holdings have recently included Cameco (CCJ), Constellation Energy (CEG), Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG), Fortum, BWX Technologies (BWXT), NexGen Energy (NXE), Uranium Energy (UEC), Denison Mines (DNN), and Centrus Energy (LEU). On a sector basis, utilities have represented roughly 30% of assets and industrials around 20%, diluting pure commodity exposure with more stable, cash-generative operators. This structure makes NLR a broader "nuclear infrastructure" play rather than a narrow uranium wager.

Global X Uranium ETF (URA) Overview

URA is also a passively managed, non-diversified ETF, but it tracks the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, which tilts toward the mining and physical-uranium segments of the industry. The fund typically holds more than 55 names yet is far more top-heavy than NLR. Its net expense ratio is 0.69%.

Top holdings have recently been dominated by Cameco (CCJ) at more than 20% of assets, followed by the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust, NexGen Energy (NXE), Oklo (OKLO), Uranium Energy (UEC), Kazatomprom, Energy Fuels (UUUU), and Paladin Energy. Sector-wise, energy (miners) has accounted for more than 60% of the portfolio, with industrials around 25% and utilities only a small single-digit slice. This gives URA a higher-beta, more commodity-sensitive profile tied closely to uranium spot prices and miner earnings.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

Both ETFs are riding a multi-year resurgence in nuclear energy driven by surging electricity demand from artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, government commitments to low-carbon baseload power, and supply constraints in the global uranium market. Utilities are signing long-term power agreements and extending reactor life, while developers advance small modular reactors (SMRs) as a scalable solution. On the supply side, years of underinvestment in mining and enrichment — compounded by geopolitical tensions involving key producers such as Kazatomprom — have kept uranium prices elevated and volatile. The main risks are regulatory shifts, project delays, and the sector's history of sharp sentiment-driven drawdowns, which affect URA's concentrated miner exposure more acutely than NLR's utility-heavy mix.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent market cycles, the two funds have diverged in line with their construction. URA, with its heavy miner and physical-uranium weighting, has tended to amplify both upswings and corrections in uranium prices, producing higher volatility and more pronounced single-name risk. NLR, by contrast, has been cushioned by regulated utilities and diversified reactor-related industrials, resulting in generally more stable fund performance and lower drawdown sensitivity. When the theme cools, URA's ~23% concentration in Cameco and sizable physical-uranium trust exposure magnify downside, whereas NLR's broader base of earnings streams softens the ride. Relative positioning therefore hinges on whether an investor prioritizes maximum commodity beta (URA) or diversified, lower-cost exposure across the nuclear ecosystem (NLR).

AI Screener

Tickeron's AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery tool that helps traders and investors filter the market using technical patterns, fundamentals, trend, volatility, and AI-driven signals. Users can scan thousands of stocks and ETFs with customizable filters such as industry, market capitalization, technical indicators, price patterns, and performance metrics. The screener is designed to surface trade ideas, breakout candidates, and emerging market opportunities more efficiently than manual screening. Explore the AI Screener to streamline your own research.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable structural factors, Tickeron's AI would likely favor NLR over URA in the current environment. NLR combines a lower expense ratio (0.52% versus 0.69%), more balanced diversification across miners, reactor builders, and regulated utilities, and meaningfully lower single-name concentration than URA's roughly 23% weight in one miner. While URA may offer greater upside if uranium spot prices rally sharply, its higher volatility and commodity sensitivity imply greater risk of outsized drawdowns. For a risk-adjusted, cost-efficient, and trend-consistent expression of the nuclear theme, NLR's structural profile appears more robust — a probabilistic, not personal, assessment.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations