URA vs VGT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
URA and VGT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. URA is Global X - Uranium ETF, while VGT is Vanguard Information Technology ETF. VGT is broader by holdings count, with 322 positions versus 62 for URA. VGT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VGT ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 39.
What is the main difference between URA and VGT?
VGT holds 322 positions to URA's 62, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | URA | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.69% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 62 | 322 |
| Top-10 concentration | 57% | 62.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 5.7% | 0.38% |
| Average volume | 3,412,219 | 4,228,286 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -29% | +27.7% |
| YTD return | -14.5% | +31.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.1% | +18.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 25% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -44.9% | -16.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -44.8% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 2.61 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.03 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 33/100 | 54/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 35/100 | 60/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Uranium ETF vs Vanguard Information Technology ETF
VGT leads
VGT leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VGT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Uranium ETF
Vanguard Information Technology ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VGT over URA, 53 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. VGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. VGT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 14 points over 30 sessions. VGT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Global X - Uranium ETF and Vanguard Information Technology ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
URA vs VGT: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | URA | VGT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.69% | 0.09% | VGT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 62 | 322 | VGT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 57% | 62.4% | URA |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 5.7% | 0.38% | URA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -44.8% | -35.1% | VGT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 50.9% | 25% | VGT |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare URA and VGT against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience35 vs 60VGT +25
- Momentum33 vs 54VGT +21
- Quality60 vs 71VGT +11
- Value24 vs 32VGT +8
4 of 4 evidence groups favor VGT. VGT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
VGT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — URA and VGT both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | URA | VGT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.69% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 62 | 322 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,412,219 | 4,228,286 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 25% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -44.9% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | 0.84 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.61 | 1.72 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
URA and VGT share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
48 holdings are unique to URA, and 319 holdings are unique to VGT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VGT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 62.39% of the fund, against 57.04% for URA (322 holdings vs 62). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What URA adds that VGT doesn’t
| Holding | URA | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| CCO.TOCAMECO CORP | 22.38% | Not held |
| NXE.TONEXGEN ENERGY LTD | 5.88% | Not held |
| OKLOOKLO INC | 5.12% | Not held |
| UECURANIUM ENERGY CORP | 4.71% | Not held |
| KAP.ILNAC KAZATOMPROM JSC-GDR REGS | 4.42% | Not held |
| PDN.AXPALADIN ENERGY LTD | 3.15% | Not held |
What VGT adds that URA doesn’t
| Holding | VGT | URA |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 17.16% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 16.26% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 10.96% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.21% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 3.82% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.18% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
URA vs VGT: five-year payout growth
URA grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 51.75% a year against VGT's 0.91%. URA: The payout jumped 1005.1% in 2023, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. URA: A single payment in an endpoint year was 16.0x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | URA | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 51.75% | 0.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.259 | $0.364 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.084 | $0.381 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #10 of 138 | #126 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VGT | 39 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VGT | Value 24 vs 32 |
| Technicals | VGT | Price vs 50-day -18.2% vs -4.5%; vs 200-day -22.7% vs 13.2% |
| Risk Resilience | VGT | Risk Resilience 35 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of URA and VGT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on VGT.
How the comparison changed
103 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28VGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VGT +14
- 39 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- VGT +10
- 37 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- VGT +22
- 38 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- URA +1
- 48 vs 47
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when VGT moved ahead of URA.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only URA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.68%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.51%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only VGT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.18%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VGT leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.57%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.32%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1URA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to VGT's edge.
- 2URA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VGT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate VGT's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
VGT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | URA | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8% | 8.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.9% | 19.8% |
| Year to date | -14.5% | 31.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29% | 27.7% |
Technicals
VGT has the stronger structure| Metric | URA | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.4 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 33.9 | 23.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.2% | -4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.7% | 13.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.4% | 23.7% |
Risk
VGT is the more resilient| Metric | URA | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.61 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.03 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -44.9% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -40.9% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between URA and VGT?
VGT holds 322 positions to URA's 62, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do URA and VGT overlap?
URA and VGT share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 48 holdings are unique to URA, and 319 holdings are unique to VGT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, URA or VGT?
VGT holds more positions: 322 versus 62 for URA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VGT has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.69% for URA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
URA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 5.7% against 0.38% for VGT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
URA has been more volatile over the past year, at 50.9% annualized against 25% for VGT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VGT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -44.8% for URA.
Compare URA and VGT with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.