Dividend comparison
NLR vs URA: Which Is Better?
Fees, yield, total returns, drawdowns, holdings overlap and dividend history for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF and Global X - Uranium ETF, side by side. Updated October 21, 2026.
NLR vs URA: key differences
The short answer, from the latest data on this page.
- Fees. NLR is cheaper at 0.52% a year versus 0.69% for URA. On $10,000 that is $17 a year less in fees.
- Income. URA pays more income, yielding 5.92% over the last twelve months versus 3.40% for NLR. That is about $253 more a year on $10,000. Both pay annual.
- Performance. Over the last 5 years, NLR returned 83.9% versus 44.7% for URA, with dividends reinvested. $10,000 would have grown to $18,392 in NLR and $14,471 in URA.
- Risk. Their worst declines over the last 5 years were similar: -43.3% for NLR and -43.1% for URA from peak to trough.
- Diversification. URA holds 60 positions and NLR holds 29. The ten largest positions make up 66.1% of NLR and 61.8% of URA.
- Overlap. 31% of the two portfolios overlap by weight, across 16 shared holdings.
- Dividend growth. URA grew its yearly payout 55.1% a year over the last 4 years, versus 30.5% for NLR.
Bottom line: NLR fits better if you care most about lower fees and stronger 5-year returns. URA fits better if you care most about more income today, faster dividend growth and broader diversification.
Side-by-side snapshot
Trailing twelve-month figures where available. Higher yield is highlighted — not a buy recommendation.
| Metric | NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | URA Global X - Uranium ETF |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend yield (TTM) | 3.40% | 5.92% |
| Dividend / share (TTM) | $3.17 | $2.08 |
| Payout frequency | Annual | Annual |
| Last dividend | $3.1661 on Dec 26, 2025 | $2.0843 on Jan 7, 2026 |
| Ex-dividend date | Dec 22, 2025 | Dec 30, 2025 |
| Dividend growth (CAGR) | 30.5% over 4 yrs | 55.1% over 4 yrs |
| Price | $93.21 | $35.18 |
| Dividend growth streak | 1 year | 1 year |
| Beta | 1.07 | 1.41 |
| Max drawdown (5Y) | -43.3% | -43.1% |
| Market cap | $2.26B | $3.54B |
| Exchange | AMEX | AMEX |
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.69% |
| Assets under management | $3.16B | $4.92B |
| Number of holdings | 29 | 60 |
| Top 10 concentration | 66.1% | 61.8% |
Income on a $10,000 investment
Illustrative only — assumes current TTM yield stays constant. Actual distributions change.
NLR
$28.31/mo
$340 /yr at 3.40% yield
URA
$49.37/mo
$592 /yr at 5.92% yield
Dividend history
Total dividends paid per share in each calendar year. NLR pays annual; URA pays annual.
| Year | NLR | URA |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | $3.1661 | $0.7414 |
| 2024 | $0.6142 | $1.7066 |
| 2023 | $3.2580 | $0.0492 |
| 2022 | $1.1093 | $1.4121 |
| 2021 | $1.0910 | $0.1280 |
Strategy: Sector and thematic
Funds that hold a single industry or theme, such as technology, semiconductors, healthcare or energy. Funds covering the same sector can still differ in concentration rules: some cap the largest positions while others let the biggest companies take a quarter of the fund. Sector funds are usually used to tilt a portfolio rather than as its core.
A single sector can fall far further than the broad market and stay down for years, and the largest names often dominate the fund.
Performance
Total returns with dividends reinvested, from the adjusted closing price series. $10,000 invested on Oct 20, 2021 would now be worth $18,392 in NLR and $14,471 in URA.
| Period | NLR | URA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 month | -13.45% | -15.53% |
| 3 months | -11.29% | -9.03% |
| Year to date | -24.95% | -17.67% |
| 1 year | -36.82% | -31.01% |
| 3 years | 48.12% | 56.43% |
| 5 years | 83.92% | 44.71% |
- NLR
- URA
Both series indexed to 100 on 2021-10-20 using the adjusted closing price series. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Sector allocation
Weight of each sector within the fund. Sectors are aligned on the same row so the two funds can be read against each other directly.
- NLR
- URA
NLR vs URA holdings overlap
31% overlap by weight, with 16 holdings in common. Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for every stock both funds own, so 100% would mean identical portfolios.
| Largest shared holdings | NLR weight | URA weight |
|---|---|---|
| KAP.ILNac Kazatomprom Jsc | 4.88% | 4.54% |
| OKLOOklo Inc | 4.18% | 5.21% |
| UECUranium Energy Corp | 4.00% | 4.56% |
| PDN.AXPaladin Energy Ltd | 3.48% | 2.88% |
| LEUCentrus Energy Corp | 3.33% | 2.73% |
| XEX-Energy Inc | 3.59% | 2.51% |
| SMRNuscale Power Corp | 3.09% | 2.49% |
| YCA.LYellow Cake Plc | 3.26% | 1.99% |
| 052690.KSKepco Engineering & Construction Co Inc | 2.80% | 1.73% |
| 1164.HKCgn Mining Co Ltd | 1.78% | 0.93% |
Top 10 holdings
Largest positions by portfolio weight.
NLR29 holdings total
URA60 holdings total
| Name | Weight |
|---|---|
| CCO.TOCAMECO CORP | 23.35% |
| U-U.TOSPROTT PHYSICAL URANIUM TR | 7.28% |
| NXE.TONEXGEN ENERGY LTD | 6.00% |
| OKLOOKLO INC | 5.21% |
| UECURANIUM ENERGY CORP | 4.56% |
| KAP.ILNAC KAZATOMPROM JSC-GDR REGS | 4.54% |
| PDN.AXPALADIN ENERGY LTD | 2.88% |
| LEUCENTRUS ENERGY CORP-CLASS A | 2.73% |
| EFR.TOENERGY FUELS INC | 2.72% |
| SSW.JOSIBANYE STILLWATER LTD | 2.51% |
Quick verdict
NLR fits better if you care most about lower fees and stronger 5-year returns. URA fits better if you care most about more income today, faster dividend growth and broader diversification. Model the holding inside your real portfolio before deciding.
Still deciding? Compare them in your portfolio
Forecast dividend income, track payouts, and see how NLR vs URA fits with the rest of your holdings. Free to start — no credit card required for the trial.
Frequently asked questions
Is NLR or URA better for dividend income?
It depends on your goals. NLR currently yields 3.40% Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) while URA yields 5.92%. Higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, but may come with different risk, growth, or NAV characteristics. Compare total return and payout sustainability — not just the headline yield.
What is the difference between NLR and URA?
VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) is an ETF listed on AMEX. Global X - Uranium ETF (URA) is an ETF listed on AMEX. Side-by-side metrics on this page cover yield, fees, returns, drawdowns, holdings overlap and dividend history when available.
Which is cheaper, NLR or URA?
NLR has the lower expense ratio. NLR charges 0.52% a year and URA charges 0.69%, a difference of $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which has performed better, NLR or URA?
Over the last 5 years, NLR has the higher total return with dividends reinvested: NLR returned 83.9% and URA returned 44.7%. Past performance does not predict future returns.
Which is riskier, NLR or URA?
Measured by the worst peak-to-trough decline over the last five years, NLR has been riskier: NLR fell as much as 43.3% and URA as much as 43.1%. Their betas are 1.07 and 1.41.
How much do NLR and URA overlap?
About 31% of the two portfolios overlap by weight, across 16 shared holdings. The largest shared positions are KAP.IL, OKLO, UEC. Holding both still adds meaningful diversification.
How often do NLR and URA pay dividends?
Both pay annual. The most recent payments were $3.1661 for NLR and $2.0843 for URA.
How much income does $10,000 in NLR vs URA generate?
At current TTM yields, $10,000 in NLR would generate roughly $28.31 per month ($340 annually). The same amount in URA would produce about $49.37 per month ($592 annually). Actual payouts vary with distribution changes and reinvestment.
Can I hold both NLR and URA?
Yes. Many income investors hold both to diversify strategy or index exposure. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on overlapping holdings and factor exposure. Model both inside Dividend Wealth to see combined income, sector mix, and forecast impact.
Where can I compare NLR vs URA with my full portfolio?
Create a free Dividend Wealth account to import or enter holdings, forecast dividend income, and see how NLR and URA fit alongside the rest of your portfolio. A 14-day free trial of Standard is available with no credit card required; a limited Free plan is also available.
Related comparisons
For informational and educational purposes only. Not investment advice. Past performance and current yields do not guarantee future results. Verify figures independently before making investment decisions.