Washington Just Committed $17.5 Billion to New Reactors. Uranium Funds Missed the Memo

David Beren

Sun, August 9, 2026 at 10:25 PM GMT+3 4 min read

Quick Read

Despite the DOE's $17.5 billion reactor commitment, URA is flat and NLR is down 8% year to date, failing to capture the policy tailwind.
URNM's physical uranium sleeve feeds spot price gains straight into NAV, delivering 15% returns over the past year versus NLR's near-zero gain.
Swapping URA for URNM in a taxable account risks triggering gains on URA's 167% five-year return, making partial reallocation a smarter move.
Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.

The Department of Energy's $17.5 billion loan commitment backing 10 new Westinghouse reactors and the domestic uranium supply chain should have been a green light for the two ETFs most retail investors use to play the nuclear renaissance. Both funds have lagged. The Global X Uranium ETF (NYSEARCA:URA) is down 0.56% year to date, and the VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NYSEARCA:NLR) is down 8.31%. For investors who bought URA or NLR specifically to own the reactor buildout, the gap between the policy tailwind and the fund performance is worth understanding before adding more.

Ployker / Shutterstock.com

Why Investors Own URA and NLR

The largest and most liquid uranium ETF is URA, with roughly $7.81 billion in net assets as of April 30, 2026, and an expense ratio of 0.69%. It offers one ticker access to miners, converters, and reactor-adjacent industrial names. NLR takes a broader view, blending uranium miners with nuclear utilities and equipment manufacturers, while offering a 2.77% dividend yield and a 0.52% expense ratio. Both funds are legitimate ways to own the theme. The problem is what "the theme" actually means when Washington is specifically funding the supply chain.

Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.

Where the Incumbents Fall Short

The DOE program rewards the pieces that build and fuel reactors: miners, enrichers, fuel fabricators, and Westinghouse's construction pipeline. NLR's largest holding is Constellation Energy at 9.62%, a nuclear power producer whose earnings track wholesale electricity prices more closely than uranium spot or reactor orders. That utility ballast is why NLR trailed even in a strong policy year: it is a nuclear ETF, but only partly a supply-chain ETF.

Closer to the supply chain is URA, though it comes with concentration risk. Cameco alone accounts for 22.18% of the fund, with the next-largest positions well below that weight. And despite the recent drift lower, more than $850 million has flowed into URA, which means retail is buying the dip in a vehicle that is essentially half a bet on one Canadian producer.

The Cleaner Play: Sprott Uranium Miners

The Sprott Uranium Miners ETF (NYSEARCA:URNM) is the more direct expression of what the DOE is actually funding. The fund holds 82.37% in uranium and related equities and 17.63% in physical uranium through the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust, giving it both operating leverage to miners and direct commodity exposure. That physical sleeve is the mechanism: as utilities and DOE-backed programs contract for pounds, spot and term uranium prices feed straight into net asset value without waiting for a miner's next quarterly report.

The exposure has been rewarded. URNM is up 15.5% over the past year, ahead of URA's 12.84% and NLR's 0.25%. Over five years, URNM has returned 113.07%. Concentration is still real: Cameco is 20.69%, and NexGen Energy is 12.65%, similar to URA. The differences are the physical uranium holding and the absence of utility and diversified industrial names that dilute the trade.

The Real Tradeoffs

At 0.75%, URNM costs 6 basis points more than URA and 23 basis points more than NLR. The asset base is smaller at $2.1 billion, and the fund tends to be more volatile because it lacks the utility dampener that softens the other funds. It is also down 5.45% year-to-date, so the recent policy news has not spared it either. What URNM does offer is a purer transmission line from the DOE spending narrative to fund returns, with uranium volatility still fully present in the equation.

How to Approach the Switch

In a taxable account, an outright swap out of URA or NLR could realize capital gains, especially given URA's 167.42% five-year return. A partial reallocation, or directing new contributions into URNM, sidesteps that. In a tax-advantaged account, the mechanics are simpler. Investors who value NLR's utility income may consider retaining a partial position in NLR while researching URNM for supply-chain exposure.

What to Watch From Here

The DOE commitment is a multi-year story, and the incumbents remain functional vehicles. URA remains defensible for investors seeking broad, liquid exposure with Cameco as an anchor. NLR still fits an income-oriented holder comfortable with utility exposure. URNM is the option to evaluate for investors whose original thesis was the supply chain itself, and whose current holding is quietly delivering something else.