Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF (URA vs COPX) 2026: Returns, Risk & Volatility

Q: Which is a better investment: URA or COPX?

Over the past year, COPX looks like the better investment: it had higher total return (COPX +43.0% vs URA -14.4%) and a higher Sharpe ratio (COPX 0.92 vs URA -0.12). On risk, COPX was less volatile (COPX 47.8% vs URA 51.8%), COPX had a smaller max drawdown (COPX -27.8% vs URA -39.3%), and URA had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of URA -6.81% vs COPX -7.04%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Returns shown in USD.

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: URA or COPX?

Over the past year, COPX outperformed URA. COPX returned +43.0% compared with URA’s -14.4%. COPX had the better risk-adjusted return, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.92 versus URA’s -0.12. COPX was less volatile than URA, and COPX had a smaller max drawdown than URA.

Total Return

URA -14.4%

COPX +43.0%

Sharpe Ratio

URA -0.12

COPX 0.92

Annualized Volatility

URA 51.8%

COPX 47.8%

Max Drawdown

URA -39.3%

COPX -27.8%

Metric winners: Total Return: COPX; Sharpe Ratio: COPX; Annualized Volatility: COPX (less volatile); Max Drawdown: COPX (smaller drawdown).

URA Total Return

↓ -14.4%

COPX Total Return

↑ +43.0%

Relative Performance of URA vs COPX (Normalized to 100)

URA COPX

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Trade URA or COPX

Access these assets on trusted platforms.

Hyperliquid

Trade perpetual futures exposure where supportedURACOPXTrade on Hyperliquid

Binance

Trade futures exposure on a global exchange where supportedURACOPXTrade on Binance

Affiliate disclosure

Key Takeaways

Total Return: URA delivered a -14.4% total return, while COPX returned +43.0% over the same period. COPX outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): URA had a negative Sharpe (-0.12) while COPX was positive (0.92), indicating COPX had meaningfully better risk-adjusted performance in this period.
Volatility (Annualized): URA was more volatile, with 51.8% annualized volatility, versus 47.8% for COPX.
Maximum Drawdown: COPX's maximum drawdown was -27.8%, while URA experienced a deeper drawdown of -39.3%.
Tail Risk (VaR & Expected Shortfall): At the 5% level (daily log returns), URA's VaR was -5.38% and its Expected Shortfall (CVaR) was -6.81%; COPX's were -5.03% and -7.04%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: URA -0.01 vs COPX -0.46. Excess kurtosis: URA 0.01 vs COPX 0.89. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): URA 6/9, COPX 9/6. Worst day: URA -9.88% (2026-06-05) vs COPX -10.62% (2026-06-05). Best day: URA +8.39% (2025-10-28) vs COPX +7.92% (2026-03-31).
Risk ratios: Sortino - URA: -0.17 vs. COPX: 1.30 , Calmar - URA: -0.37 vs. COPX: 1.55 , Sterling - URA: -0.54 vs. COPX: 2.41 , Treynor - URA: -0.03 vs. COPX: 0.19 , Ulcer Index - URA: 22.07% vs. COPX: 11.81%

Investment Comparison

If you invested $10,000 in each asset on October 7, 2025:

URA $8,559.88 -14.4%

COPX $14,304.06 +43.0%

Difference: $5,744.18 (COPX ahead)

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF Performance Over Time

Metric	URA	COPX
30 Days	-9.2%	-4.8%
90 Days	0.3%	18.1%
180 Days	-17.9%	5.8%
1 Year	-14.4%	43%

Shorter time frames can show different leaders as market conditions change. Consider your investment horizon when comparing performance.

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF Correlation

Average Correlation

strongly correlated

0.71

Current (30-day) 0.71

30-day rolling range +0.24 to +0.93

Global X Uranium ETF and Global X Copper Miners ETF are strongly correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.71, these assets tend to move together, limiting diversification benefits.

For portfolio construction, this strong correlation means holding both URA and COPX provides limited risk reduction — they're likely to decline together in downturns.

Metric	Value
Current (30-day)	0.71
Average (full period)	0.71
Minimum (30-day rolling)	0.24
Maximum (30-day rolling)	0.93

Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement. Current, minimum, and maximum figures are 30-day rolling correlations on shared daily returns.

Drawdown

Maximum Drawdown

URA

-39.3%

COPX

-27.8%

Global X Uranium ETF experienced its maximum drawdown of -39.3% from 2026-01-28 to 2026-07-29. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Global X Copper Miners ETF experienced its maximum drawdown of -27.8% from 2026-02-27 to 2026-03-20. It took 158 days to recover.

Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF Volatility (URA vs COPX)

URA Volatility

51.8%

±3.26% 1-day vol

COPX Volatility

47.8%

±3.01% 1-day vol

1-day volatility (1σ)

URA

±3.26%

COPX

±3.01%

Global X Uranium ETF's 51.8% annualized volatility translates to about ±3.26% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Global X Copper Miners ETF's 47.8% annualized volatility translates to about ±3.01% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

URA had the wider volatility profile over this window. That means its day-to-day return distribution was broader; COPX was calmer, but lower volatility does not by itself mean better returns.

Treat the ± daily figure as a one-standard-deviation estimate from historical returns, not a forecast or expected absolute daily move. For context, 15-18% annualized volatility is roughly ±1% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of URA and COPX

Sharpe Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Return per total volatility

Sharpe gives us excess return per unit of risk. Upside and downside volatility both count as risk.

Higher is better

excess return / total volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sharpe} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_R}

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. URA had a negative Sharpe (-0.12) while COPX was positive (0.92), indicating COPX had meaningfully better risk-adjusted performance in this period.

A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Sortino Ratio of URA and COPX

Sortino Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Return per downside volatility

Sortino keeps the return-over-risk idea, but only returns below the target rate count as volatility.

Higher is better

excess return / downside volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sortino} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_{\mathrm{down}}}

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). COPX had better downside-adjusted returns.

A higher Sortino is better. It's useful when upside volatility is common (crypto is the obvious example). Downside deviation: URA 36.2% vs COPX 33.6%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices, using the daily risk-free rate as the target return, and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Calmar Ratio of URA and COPX

Calmar Ratio: URA vs. COPX

CAGR per worst drawdown

Calmar compares CAGR against the single deepest peak-to-trough loss over the period.

Higher is better

CAGR / max drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Calmar} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR}}{|\mathrm{MaxDD}|}

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. COPX posted the higher Calmar ratio.

Calmar is computed on each asset's full 365-day lookback and uses the max drawdown over that same window.

Sterling Ratio of URA and COPX

Sterling Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Return per average drawdown

Sterling smooths the drawdown penalty by using average drawdown events instead of only the worst one.

Higher is better

excess annual return / average deep drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sterling} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR} - R_f}{\overline{D}_{>10\%}}

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). COPX posted the higher Sterling ratio.

Sterling uses average drawdown events deeper than 10% and subtracts the risk-free rate to report excess return.

Treynor Ratio of URA and COPX

Treynor Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Excess return per market beta

Treynor divides excess annualized return by beta — the sensitivity of the asset to broad-market moves. The slope shown is each asset’s beta vs SPY.

Higher is better

excess return / market beta

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Treynor} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\beta}

Treynor ratio measures excess return per unit of market risk (beta) instead of total volatility. COPX posted the higher Treynor ratio.

Treynor uses beta vs the S&P 500 (SPY) on shared dates and the average 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free rate.

Ulcer Index of URA and COPX

Ulcer Index: URA vs. COPX

Drawdown pain

Ulcer Index is a risk index, not a return-over-risk ratio. Lower means smaller and shorter drawdowns.

Lower is better

root-mean-square drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{UI} = \sqrt{\mathbb{E}[D_t^2]}

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. COPX had the lower Ulcer Index (less drawdown pain).

Ulcer Index is computed from each asset's drawdown series over the full lookback window.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Global X Uranium ETF vs. Global X Copper Miners ETF

This section looks at the shape of daily returns, not just the average. Tail stats are computed per asset on its own daily series (crypto includes weekends). We use daily log returns $\ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)$ so multi-day moves add cleanly.

Definitions: Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall, skew, kurtosis, and fat tails.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: URA vs. COPX (1-Year)

Actual daily return tails

The bars are real daily log-return observations from the article window. Darker bars are observations at or beyond each asset’s 5% VaR cutoff.

Observed returns

VaR marks the 5th percentile loss cutoff; Expected Shortfall averages the observations beyond that cutoff.

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}=Q_{0.05}(r_t),\quad \mathrm{ES}_{5\%}=\mathbb{E}[r_t\mid r_t\le \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}]

Metric (1-Year)	URA	COPX
5% VaR (daily log return)	-5.38%	-5.03%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-6.81% (worst 13 days)	-7.04% (worst 13 days)
Skew	-0.01	-0.46
Excess kurtosis	0.01	0.89
2σ tail days (down / up)	6 / 9	9 / 6
Worst day	-9.88% (2026-06-05)	-10.62% (2026-06-05)
Best day	+8.39% (2025-10-28)	+7.92% (2026-03-31)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=250). A “2σ downside move” means a shared-close log return more than 2 standard deviations below that asset’s own mean on this shared-date series. Dates below show simple returns (%) for readability.

Downside co-move map: URA vs. COPX (2σ)

Shared-close daily returns

Dots mark actual downside days: asset-colored dots are one-sided downside moves, and red dots are joint downside days. Grey dots add sampled shared-return context when available. The shaded lower-left zone shows where both URA and COPX crossed their own 2σ downside threshold.

2σ

Show downside tail dates

Dates below are shared-date observations. The “Date” is the period end (close). Tail thresholds are computed on log returns, but the table shows simple returns (%) for readability. Returns are computed from the previous shared close to this one (for example, Friday → Monday includes weekend moves).

Days when both URA and COPX had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	URA	COPX
2026-01-30	-7.32%	-10.00%
2026-03-03	-7.88%	-7.03%
2026-06-05	-9.88%	-10.62%

Days when URA had a big down day

Date (interval)	URA	COPX
2025-10-21	-6.59%	-4.83%
2025-11-20	-6.71%	-4.04%
2026-01-30	-7.32%	-10.00%
2026-02-04	-6.91%	-4.57%
2026-03-03	-7.88%	-7.03%
2026-06-05	-9.88%	-10.62%

Days when COPX had a big down day

Date (interval)	URA	COPX
2026-01-30	-7.32%	-10.00%
2026-02-05	-6.26%	-6.12%
2026-03-03	-7.88%	-7.03%
2026-03-05	-5.14%	-6.65%
2026-03-26	-4.60%	-6.28%
2026-05-15	-4.90%	-7.08%
2026-06-05	-9.88%	-10.62%
2026-06-23	-2.61%	-6.37%
2026-09-10	-3.97%	-6.99%

Read this as “how ugly the ugly days get”, not as a precise forecast. One-year samples are small, so tail estimates are inherently noisy.

Full Comparison of Global X Uranium ETF vs. Global X Copper Miners ETF (1-Year)

Metric	URA	COPX
Total Return	-14.4%	+43.0%
Annualized Volatility	51.8%	47.8%
Sharpe Ratio	-0.12	0.92
Sortino Ratio	-0.17	1.30
Calmar Ratio	-0.37	1.55
Sterling Ratio	-0.54	2.41
Treynor Ratio	-0.03	0.19
Ulcer Index	22.07%	11.81%
Max Drawdown	-39.3%	-27.8%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.66	0.66
5% VaR (daily log return)	-5.38%	-5.03%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-6.81%	-7.04%
Skew	-0.01	-0.46
Excess kurtosis	0.01	0.89
2σ tail days (down / up)	6 / 9	9 / 6

Audit this calculation

Formulas, inputs, and conventions used to compute the metrics on this page.

Inputs & conventions

Shared window for pair metrics: 2025-10-07 → 2026-10-06 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 221 rolling 30-day values (from 250 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): URA: 252 days/year; COPX: 252 days/year.
Risk-free rate: Uses the 3-month U.S. Treasury yield (FRED: DGS3MO), averaged over each asset’s window:

URA: 3.81% over 2025-10-07 → 2026-10-06.

COPX: 3.81% over 2025-10-07 → 2026-10-06.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

URA: ≈ -13.4%/yr

COPX: ≈ -11.4%/yr
Data alignment: No forward fill. Correlation and tail co-moves are computed on shared closes only.
For cross-calendar pairs (e.g., crypto vs stocks), weekend/holiday moves roll into the next shared close.
Return conventions: Volatility/Sharpe/Sortino use simple daily returns. Tail-risk uses daily log returns for distribution stats (but tables show simple returns). Log returns.

Formulas

Daily simple return

r_t = \frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}} - 1

Volatility

\sigma_{ann} = \sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}

Volatility drag (approx.)

\text{drag} \approx \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_{ann}^2

Sharpe Ratio

S = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}}

Sortino Ratio

So = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\min(0,\,r_t - r_f/A)^2]}\,\sqrt{A}}

Maximum Drawdown

MDD = \min_t\left(\frac{P_t}{\max_{s \le t} P_s} - 1\right)

Average Correlation

\rho = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(r^A,\,r^B)}{\sigma_A\,\sigma_B}

Log returns

\ell_t = \ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)

Notation

$P_t$: Price on day t.
$r_t$: Simple daily return.
$\ell_t$: Log daily return.
$\bar{r}$: Average daily return.
$\sigma(r_t)$: Standard deviation of daily returns.
$A$: Annualization factor (days/year).
$r_f$: Annual risk-free rate.

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: URA or COPX?

URA showed higher volatility at 51.8% annualized, compared to 47.8% for COPX Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does URA provide diversification when held with COPX?

URA and COPX are strongly correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.71. This strong correlation limits diversification benefits.

How bad are the worst 5% days for URA vs COPX?

Over the past year, URA's 5% VaR was -5.38% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -6.81% (worst 13 days). COPX's were -5.03% and -7.04% (worst 13 days).

Do URA and COPX crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=250), when COPX has a 2σ down day, URA also does 33.3% (3/9 days). In the other direction, when URA has one, COPX also does 50.0% (3/6 days).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: URA or COPX?

URA had a negative Sharpe (-0.12) while COPX was positive (0.92) Over the past year, indicating COPX had meaningfully better risk-adjusted performance.

Can URA and COPX be combined in a portfolio?

Yes, though allocation sizing matters. Their strong correlation provides limited risk reduction since they tend to move together. URA's higher volatility (51.8%) means even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.

Explore our financial glossary

Which is a better investment: URA or COPX?

Share This Comparison of URA vs COPX

Relative Performance of URA vs COPX (Normalized to 100)

Trade URA or COPX

Key Takeaways

Investment Comparison

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF Performance Over Time

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF Correlation

Drawdown

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF Volatility (URA vs COPX)

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of URA and COPX

Sharpe Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Sortino Ratio of URA and COPX

Sortino Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Calmar Ratio of URA and COPX

Calmar Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Sterling Ratio of URA and COPX

Sterling Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Treynor Ratio of URA and COPX

Treynor Ratio: URA vs. COPX

Ulcer Index of URA and COPX

Ulcer Index: URA vs. COPX

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Global X Uranium ETF vs. Global X Copper Miners ETF

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: URA vs. COPX (1-Year)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Downside co-move map: URA vs. COPX (2σ)

Days when both URA and COPX had a big down day (2σ)

Days when URA had a big down day

Days when COPX had a big down day

Full Comparison of Global X Uranium ETF vs. Global X Copper Miners ETF (1-Year)

Inputs & conventions

Formulas

Global X Uranium ETF vs Global X Copper Miners ETF: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: URA or COPX?

Does URA provide diversification when held with COPX?

How bad are the worst 5% days for URA vs COPX?

Do URA and COPX crash together on bad days?

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: URA or COPX?

Can URA and COPX be combined in a portfolio?