URA vs. URNM vs. URNJ vs. NLR: Uranium ETF Holdings and Overlap

An ETF label is not a complete basket definition. The benchmark decides what kind of company can qualify, and portfolio weights show how that rule translates into actual positions. This comparison looks at four U.S.-listed funds whose names all evoke uranium or nuclear energy but whose issuer lists are not interchangeable.

URA seeks to track the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Global X describes its scope as companies involved in uranium extraction, refining, exploration, or manufacturing equipment for the uranium and nuclear industries. The result can include miners, a physical uranium trust, and nuclear technology or component companies.

URNM seeks to invest at least 80% of total assets in securities of the VettaFi Global Uranium Mining Index. The index universe includes miners, explorers, developers, and producers, as well as some securities holding physical uranium, uranium royalties, or other supporting non-mining activities. The June 2026 methodology divides its target index weight into 82.5% uranium-related equities and 17.5% physical-uranium, royalty, or other non-mining assets. That target is a design rule for the index, not a promise that the ETF’s daily weights will match those percentages.

URNJ follows the Nasdaq Sprott Junior Uranium Miners Index. Sprott describes its universe as mid-, small-, and micro-cap companies working in uranium mining-related activities. The fund’s latest holdings are all company shares plus a small cash-equivalent line; it does not use the same physical-trust allocation described for URNM. NLR instead tracks an index spanning uranium miners, nuclear plant and reactor construction or maintenance, nuclear electricity generation, and suppliers of nuclear equipment, technology, or services. That makes utility operators and engineering businesses part of its intended map.

The holdings snapshots are not all from one date. Global X, Sprott’s URNM page, and Sprott’s URNJ page reported September 25, 2026 holdings. VanEck’s NLR feed was dated September 24, 2026. The date difference is small, but it matters: these tables describe the issuer-reported portfolios on those dates, not a synchronized live portfolio.

The counts refer to the sponsor files or product pages, so they do not all use the same convention. URA’s page reports 58 holdings. Sprott reports 26 URNM holdings and separately displays cash equivalents; the two Sprott Physical Uranium Trust listings are consolidated to one issuer only for the overlap calculation. Sprott’s September 25 URNJ file lists 41 company securities and a 0.17% cash-equivalent line. NLR’s September 24 feed has 25 stock rows and three cash or accounting rows. Those are not 25 companies plus three additional operating businesses.

Fees are the current stated annual expense ratios checked on September 26, not the full cost of buying and holding shares. VanEck lists NLR at 0.52% net and gross, with an expense cap that excludes specified items and is scheduled through at least May 1, 2027. Brokerage charges, spreads, taxes, portfolio trading costs, and market-price deviations from net asset value are separate.

URA’s breadth is visible in its largest positions. On September 25, Cameco was 21.81% of net assets, the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust 6.76%, NexGen Energy 5.89%, and Oklo 5.75%. The largest ten reported holding lines account for about 60.9%. Cameco alone represents more than one-fifth of the fund, so a broad theme label should not be mistaken for equal exposure to every part of the nuclear supply chain.

The portfolio includes both companies tied closely to uranium production and firms associated with the wider nuclear industry. A reactor-equipment manufacturer or advanced-reactor developer can respond to different contracts, financing needs, regulation, and project timelines than a mine operator. Even miners differ: one may be producing today, another may be developing a deposit, and an explorer may have no producing mine. Owning several names therefore diversifies issuer-specific events to some extent, but it does not remove the common commodity, policy, capital-market, or project-cycle exposure.

URA’s reported annual expense ratio is 0.69%. Its product objective explicitly references the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components index, not a physical uranium benchmark. A physical trust inside the holdings does not make the entire fund a commodity trust, and the fund’s share price is not a spot uranium quote. The direct Global X URA profile and September 25 holdings file show the objective, fee, and dated positions.

URNM’s September 25 top holdings were Cameco at 20.21%, Sprott Physical Uranium Trust at 14.95%, NexGen Energy at 12.67%, and Kazatomprom at 4.83%. The ten largest reported security lines sum to 78.66%; the full file also shows a second 0.08% trust listing. If the two trust lines are grouped under their common issuer, the displayed top-ten exposure becomes 78.74%.

That small reconciliation matters when reading a holdings table: a listing can be a separate row without representing a second operating issuer. I retain the sponsor’s row-based top-ten total when describing the published list, then consolidate the two trust listings only when matching issuers across funds. The distinction avoids making the fund appear to own two different uranium trusts.

Sprott classifies 82.38% of URNM as “Uranium & Related Equities” and 17.62% as “Physical Uranium” in its August 31 portfolio characteristics. Those figures come from a different date and a sponsor-defined classification; they are not interchangeable with a calculation that adds the September 25 security lines for the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and Yellow Cake. On the September file, those lines total 19.19% when both trust listings are grouped. The difference can reflect date, grouping, and classification choices, so the article keeps the two snapshots separate.

The June 2026 VettaFi methodology gives the index 82.5% target weight in uranium-related equities and 17.5% in physical uranium, royalties, or other non-mining assets. Sprott’s prospectus says at least 80% of the fund’s total assets are invested in index securities. Neither statement fixes URNM’s exact daily holdings at the target weights. URNM’s reported annual expense ratio is 0.75%. Its fund page, June 2026 index methodology, and summary prospectus describe the benchmark, assets, costs, and risks.

URNJ’s September 25 top four were NexGen Energy at 12.81%, Paladin Energy at 11.65%, Denison Mines at 11.29%, and Energy Fuels at 11.11%. Those four lines sum to 46.86%; the top ten sum to 73.47%. Its next six holdings are each between 4.06% and 4.81%, so the leading four names make up a large portion of the observed portfolio.

The “junior” label refers to the index’s market-cap and company universe, not to a guarantee that each holding is an early-stage explorer. Sprott’s eligibility rules cover producers, developers, explorers, royalty firms, and suppliers, subject to listing, trading-history, and size tests. A company can move from one development stage to another without its business risk becoming identical to that of a producer. Permitting, financing, construction, recovery rates, operating costs, and access to processing or transport can all affect the path from a deposit to sales.

URNJ’s page shows a 0.80% annual expense ratio. Its September holdings put 100% of the reported investable equities into uranium-related companies, with a 0.17% cash-equivalent line. The latest Sprott FAQ says that, effective September 21, 2026, the index rebalances quarterly in March, June, September, and December, while full reconstitutions remain semiannual in June and December. The product page’s key-facts section still labels the frequency “semi-annual.” Because these official pages conflict, the dated FAQ and September 2026 supplement are the more specific sources for the revised schedule; readers should check the latest prospectus and index documents before relying on a calendar. Rebalance and reconstitution are not synonyms: one updates weights, while the other reviews which companies qualify.

The FAQ describes initial index-weight caps of 12% for each of the four largest constituents and 4.75% for other constituents. URNJ’s September 25 fund file shows NexGen at 12.81% and several other positions above 4.75%. That does not establish that the index rule failed: weights can drift after a review and fund holdings can differ from index targets. The available source text does not explain the specific gap, so the article does not infer a cause. The Sprott URNJ page, FAQ, and September 2026 supplement are the primary references.

NLR’s September 24 top five included Constellation Energy at 8.17%, Cameco at 8.05%, Public Service Enterprise Group at 7.36%, Fortum at 6.97%, and BWX Technologies at 6.09%. The top ten sum to 61.71%. Unlike a miners-only fund, its largest positions span a power generator, a uranium producer, a utility, a nuclear-services company, and other nuclear-related businesses.

VanEck’s index description covers four broad activities: uranium mining; construction, engineering, and maintenance of nuclear facilities and reactors; electricity generation from nuclear sources; and equipment, technology, or services for the nuclear-power industry. That scope explains why nuclear utilities can be substantial even when uranium miners are part of the theme. The September holdings include utilities and power operators alongside Cameco, NexGen, Kazatomprom, and several fuel-cycle or technology names.

A utility’s earnings can depend on electricity prices, regulation, fuel sourcing, plant operations, and capital spending. A reactor supplier or engineering contractor can be exposed to order timing and project execution. A mine developer’s key uncertainties are different again. NLR therefore broadens the business mix, but it does not eliminate nuclear-sector concentration or make every holding respond to the same driver.

VanEck reports a 0.52% current expense ratio and a 0.60% expense limitation through at least May 1, 2027, subject to exclusions in its agreement. Its fund page and dated holdings feed provide the current terms and September 24 holdings. The September 2026 MVIS index guide defines the benchmark more fully.

The table uses sponsor-displayed weights as percentages of fund net assets. It lists the ten largest security rows reported for each portfolio on the date shown. Names with different listing symbols can still represent the same company. Global X’s dated CSV lists Paladin at 3.06%, while the product-page table displays 3.07%; the table and worked arithmetic here follow the CSV, and URA’s top-ten total is therefore stated approximately. The top-ten total is a concentration snapshot; it is not a forecast of volatility or a measure of how the funds will perform together.

The table shows three different concentration patterns. URA’s single largest position is much bigger than NLR’s, but its top ten sum is lower than URNM’s. URNJ’s leading four are each close to or above 11%, while NLR’s first ten spread across power generation, mining, engineering, and technology. A lower top-ten total does not make a fund low-risk: a collection of smaller companies can still share a common commodity or financing shock.

The four largest URNM rows shown above sum to 52.66%. If the separate 0.08% Sprott trust listing is grouped with the main trust line, the fund’s top-ten issuer exposure is 78.74%. For cross-fund matching, the trust’s listings are always consolidated as one issuer. All other top-ten sums remain the sum of the ten displayed rows.

To compare overlap, I matched company names across each fund’s official holdings file rather than requiring the same exchange ticker. That links Cameco’s CCO and CCJ listings, Energy Fuels’ EFR and UUUU listings, and cross-listed lines for other companies. It also groups the two Sprott Physical Uranium Trust security lines within URNM as one issuer. Cash, currency, and accounting rows are excluded.

For each pair, the first number below is the count of issuers appearing in both equity lists. The next two figures add each fund’s own reported weights for those matched issuers. For example, 58.7% for URA / 99.9% for URNM means that the 25 shared companies make up about 58.7% of URA and 99.9% of URNM. The source rows are displayed to two decimals, and the results are rounded to one decimal. A small change may occur if a sponsor revises weights or ticker-to-issuer mappings.

This is a descriptive matched-issuer measure, not the sole definition of portfolio overlap. It does not add the smaller weight in each pair, estimate return correlation, or measure shared sensitivity to uranium prices. Two funds can hold the same producer at different weights, use different countries or currencies, and respond differently to non-company cash positions. It also does not mean that the remaining percentage is economically unrelated: a power generator and a miner can both be affected by nuclear policy even if they do not own the same shares.

The matrix answers a narrower question than “are these ETFs the same?” URA and URNJ share 30 issuers, but those matches represent only about one-fifth of URA and nearly all of URNJ. URNM and NLR share 13, yet those companies account for about three-quarters of URNM and less than half of NLR. This asymmetry follows from their different mandates: URNM is tightly tied to uranium-linked companies, while NLR holds substantial utilities and nuclear infrastructure businesses outside that miner-heavy group.

Suppose an investor hypothetically divides USD 40,000 equally among the four funds, placing USD 10,000 in each. Applying the published weights to that fixed amount illustrates how the same issuer can reappear through multiple funds. It is a mechanical exposure example, not a recommendation or a return estimate.

The calculation is weight × USD 10,000 for each fund, then addition across funds. For Paladin, for example, 3.06% of URA gives USD 306, 4.33% of URNM gives USD 433, 11.65% of URNJ gives USD 1,165, and 4.21% of NLR gives USD 421. The sum is USD 2,325, or 5.8125% of the total USD 40,000, rounded to 5.81%. These values use displayed holdings rounded to two decimal places and are not exact current market exposures.

The example makes a key portfolio point concrete: owning four tickers does not automatically create four independent sources of risk. An equal dollar split produces a combined Cameco position of about 12.5% in this illustration, even though no single fund other than URA holds more than 21% in Cameco. Someone seeking several different business exposures would need to inspect the underlying issuers rather than count fund names.

For a static USD 10,000 holding over one year, the stated expense ratios correspond to about USD 69 for URA, USD 75 for URNM, USD 80 for URNJ, and USD 52 for NLR. This is a simple annualized estimate (investment amount × expense ratio). The fund does not send a separate invoice for that estimate; operating expenses accrue within fund assets. Actual cost varies with average assets, waivers, trading, and the time held. The NLR figure uses its current net expense ratio and its stated limitation has exclusions.

An expense ratio does not explain basket risk. URA’s broad nuclear-component and mining mix still has a very large Cameco weight. URNM has notable physical-trust exposure alongside miners, and its value can be affected by trust pricing and uranium-market conditions. URNJ’s smaller-company focus brings company financing, project development, permitting, operating, liquidity, and market-cap risks. NLR’s utility and engineering mix adds regulated earnings, plant operations, project timing, and power-market exposures while retaining uranium-miner positions.

All four funds can be affected by changing uranium prices, policy, interest rates, foreign-exchange moves, and risk appetite, but those channels do not enter each holding in the same way. A producing mine may have operating leverage to realized prices and cost overruns. A developer may be more exposed to financing and project approval. A utility may buy fuel under contracts and earn revenue under a regulated or market-based framework. The issuer overlap table does not quantify these pathways or predict the direction of returns.

These are U.S.-listed funds with holdings across multiple countries and exchanges. Currency conversion, foreign-market hours, foreign issuer disclosure, and political or regulatory conditions can affect portfolio valuation. For the fund-level limits and risk language, read each current prospectus rather than treating a holdings snapshot as a promise of future positions. The URNM prospectus is one direct example; the other issuers also publish current prospectuses from their product pages.

A comparison with COPX, LIT, and REMX critical-minerals ETFs helps separate uranium miners from copper, lithium, and rare-earth businesses. Those funds may share broad mining-company risks or individual issuers, but a materials label does not make their index rules the same. The related XLE, VDE, and IYE energy-sector ETF analysis covers much broader energy-company baskets; it does not isolate the nuclear chain.

For the utility portion of NLR, the XLU, VPU, and IDU utilities ETF comparison shows how a broad utilities mandate differs from a nuclear-themed one. The article on ETF expense ratios and total ownership costs explains why the management expense is only one piece of a holding’s cost. Together, these comparisons locate the uranium funds within a wider ETF map without treating sector labels as substitutes for holdings analysis.

The practical conclusion is a set of questions rather than a ranking. Is the exposure sought mainly uranium producers, junior-company development, physical-uranium vehicles, nuclear utilities, or a broader component supply chain? How much of the portfolio is concentrated in a few issuers? Which securities appear in more than one fund? Do the current index documents and holdings match the intended exposure? Those questions are more specific than choosing the fund with the most holdings or the lowest fee.

The holdings weights above are sponsor-reported values dated September 24 or 25, 2026 and displayed to two decimal places. The URNM/URNJ benchmark distinctions are supported by the issuers’ current product pages and index documents. URNJ’s dated FAQ and September supplement clarify its revised rebalance calendar; the product-page key-facts field still shows a conflicting semiannual frequency. Overlap calculations normalize issuer names across ordinary equity listings, group URNM’s two Sprott trust rows, and exclude cash, currencies, and accounting items. They use displayed weights, so rounded totals may differ slightly from a recalculation using more precise source data.

This article describes fund structure and holdings snapshots. It does not provide investment, tax, legal, or financial advice. Fund documents, holdings, fees, index rules, and market prices can change; review the current issuer materials before relying on them.