The VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NYSEARCA:NLR) sits at the center of one of the most crowded investment themes of the past two years, and it does so with a 0.61% expense ratio that is neither the cheapest nor the most expensive in its niche. The question for investors is whether that fee buys a portfolio that genuinely captures the nuclear buildout, or whether cheaper broad-energy funds and more concentrated uranium miner funds do the job better. This piece walks through NLR itself, then compares it with the Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (NYSEARCA:URNM), the Vanguard Energy ETF (NYSEARCA:VDE), and the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (NASDAQ:ICLN) so a reader can see which fund fits which mandate.
Nuclear demand is being pulled forward by data center power needs, electric vehicle adoption, and government policy that increasingly treats atomic power as a carbon-free baseload complement to solar and wind. Uranium equities and reactor-adjacent utilities have absorbed most of that thematic capital. NLR is the oldest listed vehicle built specifically for that flow.
What NLR Actually Owns
The VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF is a global fund that spans the entire nuclear value chain rather than a pure basket of uranium miners. According to the fund’s current disclosures, it holds 28 positions, with the top ten names representing 61% of assets. Sector exposure is 43% energy and 29% utilities, a split that captures both the fuel side (uranium miners and enrichers) and the electricity side (regulated and merchant nuclear generators).
The top five holdings tell the story of the strategy. Cameco at 8%, Constellation Energy at 8%, Public Service Enterprise Group at 7%, BWX Technologies at 7%, and Fortum Oyj at 6%. The mix pairs a uranium producer with a merchant nuclear operator, a regulated utility with meaningful nuclear generation, a small modular reactor and naval nuclear supplier, and a Nordic utility with significant reactor exposure. For a reader trying to own the theme without picking a single winner, that spread is the pitch.
Fund size supports that pitch. NLR carries $4.57 billion in assets, which provides sufficient scale to keep bid-ask spreads reasonable and make the fund a default institutional choice within the theme.
Performance And What Investors Have Paid For
The VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF trades near $114 and has delivered a five-year gain of roughly 144% and a ten-year gain of about 202%. The one-year figure is 10%, and the year-to-date figure is-8%, reflecting a cooling of nuclear equities after strong 2024 and 2025.
That long-term track record is the strongest argument for paying 0.61%. Recent Motley Fool and Benzinga coverage cited an annualized five-year return of nearly 18%, well ahead of broad energy and clean energy benchmarks over the same period. Sentiment scoring on twelve articles published in the past month leaned bullish or somewhat bullish on eight of them.
Income is the other line item. NLR pays annually, and the December 2025 distribution was $3.1661 per share, up from $0.6142 in 2024. The trailing yield sits near 2.8%. Distributions have swung widely across the fund’s history, from $0.333 in 2013 to $3.89 in 2007, so the yield should be read as a byproduct of underlying holdings rather than a stable income stream.
The tradeoff to weigh: NLR is concentrated by holdings and by geography, and it carries a portfolio price-to-earnings ratio near 32. A single earnings problem at Cameco, Constellation, or BWX can move the fund noticeably.
The Pure Uranium Alternative: URNM
The Sprott Uranium Miners ETF strips out the utilities and concentrates on uranium miners and physical uranium holders. That structural choice makes it the higher-beta way to play the theme. Its one-year return is 22%, more than double the nuclear energy fund’s, while its five-year return is 111%, below that of the broader fund over the same window. That gap tells the story: the miners ETF captures more of the uranium price cycle in either direction, while the broader nuclear fund’s utility weight smooths returns.
Recent coverage in the 24/7 Wall St. Daily Profit newsletter has flagged uranium spot moves as a driver worth tracking for active traders in this space. For an investor who wants leverage to the uranium price itself and can tolerate deeper drawdowns, URNM is the sharper instrument. For an investor who wants the theme without swinging on commodity spot prices, NLR’s utility ballast is a feature.
Where NLR Loses The Fee Argument
Two funds regularly appear in comparison articles alongside NLR, and both charge less. VDE gives broad exposure to oil, gas, and integrated majors at a small fraction of NLR’s expense ratio, and it has outrun NLR over the past year on the strength of fossil fuel margins. It is not a nuclear fund, though, and only a sliver of its portfolio touches reactors or fuel. Owning VDE to play nuclear is a category error.
The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF is the other reference point. It leans heavily toward solar, wind, and grid names, with limited nuclear content. Over a five-year period, the nuclear energy fund has produced higher returns with lower volatility than this clean energy product, according to comparison articles from The Globe and Mail. Investors who want exposure to the broader decarbonization trade, not the atomic slice specifically, are better served by the clean energy ETF or a mix of the two.
Which Fund For Which Investor
Three distinct investor profiles emerge from this comparison. An investor who wants a diversified way to own the nuclear buildout, including both fuel producers and the utilities that operate reactors, is the natural buyer of NLR, and the 0.61% fee is defensible given the fund’s scale and mixed exposure. An investor who wants direct leverage to uranium prices and can accept the volatility should look at URNM instead. An investor whose real thesis is broad energy or broad decarbonization, rather than nuclear specifically, will find VDE or ICLN a closer match to the underlying view.
The current setup, with NLR down year to date while URNM’s one-year return runs ahead, is a reminder that these funds move differently even when the theme is shared. The choice between them is less about which is the best nuclear ETF in the abstract and more about which slice of the nuclear trade an investor actually wants to own.
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks