NLR vs TAN
VanEck Uranium & Nuclear ETF vs Invesco Solar ETF
Which is better, NLR or TAN?
Each has led over a different period.
NLR has a lower expense ratio. NLR led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, TAN over 1Y. TAN is less concentrated, with 59.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | NLR | TAN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.52%Best | 0.70% |
| AUM | $3.4B | $888M |
| Dividend Yield | 3.06% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 52 | 91 |
| YTD Return | -28.95% | -17.36%Best |
| 1Y Return | -39.48% | -9.06%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.30%Best | -4.49% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.54%Best | -13.37% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 23.6%Best | 43.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -60.9%Best | -95.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,869Best | $4,879 |
| Top 10 Weight | 62.3% | 59.9%Best |
| Fund Family | VanEck | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Mid Cap Growth |
| Inception | Aug 13, 2007 | Apr 15, 2008 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 15, 2008 to Oct 14, 2026 (18.5 years).
NLR vs TAN growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 18.5 years both funds cover.
NLR vs TAN Performance
VanEck Uranium & Nuclear ETF (NLR) is an ETF from VanEck and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year NLR returned -39.48% while TAN returned -9.06%. Year to date, NLR is down 28.95% versus a loss of 17.36% for TAN.
Over three years, NLR compounded at +14.30% per year against -4.49% for TAN; over five years the annualized figures are +13.54% and -13.37% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, NLR has the edge at +3.24% annualized vs -7.83%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TAN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 43.5% compared with 23.6% for NLR. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -60.9% for NLR and -95.3% for TAN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.52. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NLR charges 0.52% per year while TAN charges 0.70%. On a $10,000 position that is $52 vs $70 annually, a gap of $18 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NLR currently yields 3.06% against 0.00% for TAN.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 25 holdings in NLR and 36 in TAN, totalling 100.0% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 25 positions we hold weights for in NLR and 36 in TAN, against full books of 52 and 91.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 13 positions for TAN that do not appear in our book for NLR (51.9% of the fund), and 10 for NLR that do not appear in TAN (45.6%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of NLR and TAN you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, NLR or TAN?
NLR has an expense ratio of 0.52% while TAN charges 0.70%. NLR is the cheaper option, by $18 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NLR or TAN?
Over the past year NLR returned -39.48% vs -9.06% for TAN, so TAN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), NLR annualized +3.24% vs -7.83% for TAN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NLR or TAN?
TAN has been the more volatile fund at 43.5% annualized versus 23.6% for NLR. Worst drawdown: NLR -60.9% vs TAN -95.3%.
Should I hold both NLR and TAN?
NLR and TAN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, NLR or TAN?
NLR yields 3.06% while TAN yields 0.00%, so NLR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TAN better than NLR?
NLR has a lower expense ratio. NLR led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, TAN over 1Y. TAN is less concentrated, with 59.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.