ETF Comparison: Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (URNM) Versus VanEck Uranium + Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR)

URNM vs. NLR: Total Cost of Ownership

Neither of these ETFs would be considered inexpensive from a fee standpoint. URNM carries an expense ratio of 0.85%, while NLR charges 0.89%. On a $10,000 investment, that works out to roughly $85 per year in fees for URNM versus $89 for NLR. The difference is marginal, but if you look at expense ratio alone, URNM has a slight edge.

Expense ratios, however, are only part of the cost equation. Trading costs also matter, particularly the bid-ask spread. Using the 30-day average, URNM

shows a spread of 0.208%, while NLR comes in lower at 0.153%. That suggests NLR

NLR

-1.02%

is somewhat more liquid, making it cheaper to enter and exit, especially for shorter holding periods or more tactical trades.

Verdict: When you combine both elements, the picture evens out. URNM is marginally cheaper on ongoing fees, while NLR is marginally cheaper to trade. Adding those together, the total cost of ownership is effectively a tie. Neither ETF is cheap, and the difference between them comes down to a basis point or two rather than a clear cost advantage.

URNM vs. NLR: Methodology and Exposure

This is where the differences between the two ETFs become much clearer. Both URNM and NLR are passive ETFs. Neither relies on discretionary stock picking or a portfolio manager’s judgment. Instead, each tracks a rules-based index, which means outcomes are driven largely by index construction and inclusion criteria rather than active views.

URNM

tracks the North Shore Global Uranium Mining Index and holds a relatively concentrated portfolio of 18 companies. Geographic exposure is dominated by Canada, which is not surprising given the country’s central role in the uranium supply chain. Canada is home to some of the world’s highest-grade uranium deposits, a stable regulatory framework, and the largest publicly listed uranium producer.

Beyond Canada, URNM has meaningful exposure to the United States at roughly 25% and Australia at around 20%, reflecting the importance of those regions in uranium mining and development. From a sector perspective, URNM is overwhelmingly tilted toward energy, as uranium itself is not a formal sector but is captured through mining and fuel production companies.

NLR

, by contrast, tracks the MVIS Global Uranium and Nuclear Energy Index and holds a slightly broader portfolio of 23 companies. Canada remains a key component, but at about 22%, it is no longer the dominant geography. Instead, U.S. exposure rises to roughly 50%, reflecting the index’s inclusion of nuclear utilities and industrial firms tied to nuclear power generation.

Sector exposure is more diversified as well. While energy still accounts for about 40%, utilities represent roughly 25% of the portfolio and industrials around 15%, intentionally expanding the scope beyond uranium mining alone.

That difference is most apparent when you look at the top holdings. URNM is effectively a pure-play uranium mining ETF. Its largest position is Cameco, the world’s leading uranium producer, followed by a substantial allocation of roughly 18% to the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust, which introduces a degree of spot-price sensitivity to balance out miner-specific risks.

Beyond that, the portfolio consists largely of uranium miners and developers such as Energy Fuels, Denison Mines, and Paladin Energy across Canada and Australia.

NLR, while also holding Cameco as its largest position, is far less concentrated, with Cameco representing just over 8% of the fund. The next largest holdings include nuclear-focused utilities such as Constellation Energy, as well as industrial companies like BWX Technologies, which manufactures nuclear components and fuel systems for both civilian power generation and defense applications.

These businesses benefit from nuclear demand without being directly tied to uranium prices, adding a different risk and return profile to the portfolio.

The concentration gap between the two ETFs is significant. In URNM, the top 15 holdings account for nearly 98% of the portfolio, making performance heavily dependent on a small group of companies. In NLR, the top 15 holdings represent about 75%, providing broader diversification across business models and revenue drivers.

Verdict: While URNM offers amplified exposure to uranium prices through miners and physical holdings, it is also far more concentrated NLR’s broader exposure across miners, utilities, and nuclear infrastructure creates a more balanced way to access the uranium and nuclear energy theme. For investors looking beyond pure commodity sensitivity and toward a more diversified expression of long-term nuclear adoption, I think NLR is the more attractive option.

URNM vs. NLR: Risk and Return

Uranium has been in what many investors would describe as a supercycle, supported by several structural tailwinds.

Rising electricity demand tied to AI and data centers, renewed focus on energy security in Europe following the war in Ukraine, and a more supportive policy environment for nuclear power have all helped push uranium prices to new highs.

Against that backdrop, it is not surprising that both URNM and NLR have delivered strong near-term performance, but looking across trailing periods, performance leadership has rotated.

Over the past five years, URNM comes out ahead, reflecting its heavier exposure to uranium miners during earlier phases of the cycle. Over the three-year period, however, NLR has taken the lead. Over shorter horizons, including one year and year-to-date, the two ETFs have continued to trade places, underscoring how sensitive returns are to shifts in sentiment, pricing, and positioning within the nuclear value chain.

Fund flows tell a similar story. Both ETFs have attracted net inflows over the full five-year window, but over the past three years, one year, and year-to-date, URNM has experienced periods of outflows while NLR has continued to gather assets and has grown meaningfully in size.

On the risk side, the differences are more consistent. Both ETFs are volatile, as expected for a theme tied to a single commodity and a capital-intensive industry. That said, URNM

is clearly the higher-risk vehicle.

Uranium miners exhibit operating leverage, meaning changes in uranium prices tend to translate into amplified swings in earnings and equity prices. When prices rise, miners can outperform dramatically, but when prices fall, losses are often magnified. That dynamic shows up in the data. Across five-, three-, and one-year periods, URNM has exhibited higher volatility than NLR

.

Maximum drawdowns tell an even clearer story. Over both the five- and three-year windows, URNM experienced peak-to-trough losses approaching 50%, nearly double the drawdowns observed in NLR. Those drawdowns also lasted much longer, with recovery periods stretching as long as 485 days for URNM compared with roughly 116 days for NLR.

A longer backtest from July 22, 2021, to December 15, 2025, covering approximately 4.4 years, reinforces that distinction. Over that period, NLR delivered a higher cumulative return, a higher annualized return, lower volatility, and a smaller maximum drawdown, resulting in a superior risk-adjusted profile relative to URNM.

It is also worth noting that during this cycle, both URNM and NLR outperformed spot uranium exposure as measured by the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. That outcome is typical in an upcycle, as equities tied to production, generation, and infrastructure tend to benefit from operating leverage and expanding margins when underlying commodity prices rise.

Verdict: While URNM

offers greater torque to uranium prices, that leverage comes with substantially higher volatility and deeper, longer-lasting drawdowns. Based on the data, NLR

NLR

-1.02%

stands out as the historically more balanced way to access the uranium and nuclear energy theme, particularly for investors who want exposure without fully absorbing the extremes of commodity-driven equity cycles.

Please note this article is for information purposes only and does not in any way constitute investment advice. It is essential that you seek advice from a registered financial professional prior to making any investment decision.