URA vs XLB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
URA and XLB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. URA is Global X - Uranium ETF, while XLB is State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF. URA is broader by holdings count, with 62 positions versus 28 for XLB. XLB has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XLB ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 39.
What is the main difference between URA and XLB?
URA and XLB have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | URA | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.69% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 62 | 28 |
| Top-10 concentration | 57% | 59.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 5.7% | 1.66% |
| Average volume | 3,412,219 | 11,162,220 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -29% | +16.5% |
| YTD return | -14.5% | +14.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.1% | +6.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 17.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -44.9% | -12.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -44.8% | -24.7% |
| Beta | 2.61 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | 0.73 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.03 | 1.21 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 33/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 35/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Uranium ETF vs State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLB leads
XLB leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLB, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Uranium ETF
State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLB over URA, 63 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. XLB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. XLB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLB today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 24 points over 30 sessions. XLB 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 State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
URA vs XLB: 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 | XLB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.69% | 0.08% | XLB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 62 | 28 | URA |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 57% | 59.4% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 5.7% | 1.66% | URA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -44.8% | -24.7% | XLB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 50.9% | 17.7% | XLB |
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 XLB 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.
- Momentum33 vs 79XLB +46
- Risk Resilience35 vs 77XLB +42
- Value24 vs 41XLB +17
- Quality60 vs 66XLB +6
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLB. XLB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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: Value -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
XLB's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — URA and XLB 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 | XLB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.69% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 62 | 28 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,412,219 | 11,162,220 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 17.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -44.9% | -12.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | 0.73 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.61 | 0.71 | 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 XLB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
48 holdings are unique to URA, and 26 holdings are unique to XLB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XLB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.39% of the fund, against 57.04% for URA (28 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 XLB doesn’t
| Holding | URA | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| 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 XLB adds that URA doesn’t
| Holding | XLB | URA |
|---|---|---|
| LINLINDE PLC | 12.91% | Not held |
| NEMNEWMONT CORP | 8.14% | Not held |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 6.19% | Not held |
| CTVACORTEVA INC | 5.11% | Not held |
| APDAIR PRODUCTS + CHEMICALS INC | 4.78% | Not held |
| ECLECOLAB INC | 4.75% | 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 XLB: five-year payout growth
URA grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 51.75% a year against XLB's 6.93%. 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 | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 51.75% | 6.93% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.259 | $0.622 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.084 | $0.870 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #10 of 138 | #77 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 XLB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLB | 39 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLB | Value 24 vs 41 |
| Technicals | XLB | Price vs 50-day -18.2% vs 3.4%; vs 200-day -22.7% vs 1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | XLB | Risk Resilience 35 vs 77 |
| 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 XLB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 24 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 widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XLB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28XLB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLB +24
- 39 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- XLB +26
- 37 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- XLB +13
- 38 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- XLB +12
- 48 vs 60
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.51%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only XLB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.33%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XLB 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.4%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLB's edge.
- 2URA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
XLB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | URA | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | 6.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.9% | 1.8% |
| Year to date | -14.5% | 14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29% | 16.5% |
Technicals
XLB has the stronger structure| Metric | URA | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.4 | 85.2 |
| ADX (14) | 33.9 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.2% | 3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.7% | 1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.4% | 12.1% |
Risk
XLB is the more resilient| Metric | URA | XLB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.61 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.63 | 0.73 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.03 | 1.21 |
| Max drawdown | -44.9% | -12.4% |
| Current drawdown | -40.9% | -3.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.9% | 17.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between URA and XLB?
URA and XLB have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do URA and XLB overlap?
URA and XLB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 48 holdings are unique to URA, and 26 holdings are unique to XLB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, URA or XLB?
URA holds more positions: 62 versus 28 for XLB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLB has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% 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 1.66% for XLB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
URA has been more volatile over the past year, at 50.9% annualized against 17.7% for XLB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XLB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.7% against -44.8% for URA.
Compare URA and XLB 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.