NLR ETF at $145.21: Uranium, Nuclear Power and the AI Baseline Energy Trade

NLR ETF: Uranium, Nuclear Power and the AI-Baseload Trade at $145.21

Macro power crunch, AI demand and why nuclear baseload funnels into NLR

NYSEARCA:NLR trades around $145.21, up 3.10% on the day (+$4.37) with an intraday range of $139.49–$145.69 and a 52-week band of $64.44–$168.10. That move is not happening in a vacuum. Data-center power demand linked to AI, cloud and high-performance computing is projected to at least double to triple between 2025 and 2030, and that demand is not for intermittent megawatts – it is for round-the-clock, high-density baseload. For hyperscalers, the incremental cost of “clean, firm” power in the $40–$48 per MWh range by 2030 translates to only about 2–3.5% EBITDA pressure in conservative scenarios, well under 1% margin impact in many models, so price is not the bottleneck – availability is. That is the structural reason capital is being pulled toward nuclear baseload and, by extension, toward vehicles like NLR ETF, which aggregates nuclear utilities, uranium miners and supporting technology into a single uranium–nuclear equity basket.

*Global reactor build-out and the uranium deficit feeding NLR ETF

The physical backdrop is tight. There are roughly 63 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide; about 28 of them – almost half – are in China, with India adding 7, and countries such as Egypt, Russia and Turkey each building 4 units. The remainder is scattered across Asia, Eastern Europe and emerging markets. The United States, by contrast, has effectively finished its only recent megaprojects – Vogtle Units 3 and 4 – and has no new large-scale reactors currently under construction, despite re-classifying nuclear as critical infrastructure. On the fuel side, long-term uranium contract models show a cumulative deficit north of 1.9 billion pounds through 2045 if current mine plans and secondary supply are not materially expanded. Long-term utility contracts are already being signed at meaningfully higher prices than the legacy cycle, locking in improved margins across the fuel chain. That structural shortfall, plus stickier contract prices, underpins the earnings power of miners and nuclear operators that sit inside NLR and explains why the ETF has tracked the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index higher, with that index up about 75.12% over one year and NLR ETF close behind at roughly +71.96%.

Portfolio construction: how NLR spreads risk across miners, utilities and tech

The key to NLR ETF is not just that it is “uranium-themed” – it is how risk is distributed. About 43% of the portfolio is directly tied to mining and uranium production, giving NLR real sensitivity to uranium pricing and volume, but not complete dependence on spot moves. The fund holds 29 positions with the top 10 at 55.90% of assets, versus more concentrated peers. The three largest weights – Cameco, Constellation and Oklo – add up to 21.33% of the ETF, meaning no single name dominates performance. Cameco’s slice of NLR is around 8%, compared with the low-20s percentage weight in the more aggressive URA product. The country allocation is anchored in developed markets: the United States accounts for just over 43% of exposure, with Canada and Australia close behind and meaningful positions in Europe and Asia. That mix means NLR is tied to the broader build-out of nuclear infrastructure, regulated utility earnings and long-term power contracts, rather than a narrow bet on a handful of speculative miners.

Risk–return profile: volatility, drawdowns and Sharpe ratio of NLR

Despite its diversification, NLR ETF is not a low-volatility bond proxy. The one-year annualized standard deviation sits around 37%, with a maximum drawdown close to -30%, numbers that confirm you are still owning a cyclical, thematically charged equity sleeve. However, the distribution of returns shows that this volatility has historically been compensated: the Sharpe ratio is roughly 1.7, and the ETF has generated positive alpha versus broad equity benchmarks. Part of that comes from the fact that drivers are not perfectly correlated. Miners respond to uranium prices and contract pipelines; utilities respond to regulated returns and policy, while engineering and tech names respond to project awards and capital programs. That multi-driver structure is exactly what the earlier, more concentrated uranium cycle lacked, and it is why NLR has been able to capture upside from the nuclear theme without fully inheriting the blow-up risk of single-name concentration.

Valuation: NLR at 66x weighted earnings versus 45x history and 85x peak

On valuation, NLR ETF is no longer cheap on backward-looking multiples. The weighted portfolio trades around 66x earnings, clearly above its historical average near 45x, and not far below the documented peak close to 85x. When the ETF traded at roughly 36x in December 2024 and 40x in mid-2025, it was a straightforward multiple-reversion story: the market was discounting the durability of the nuclear build-out and AI-driven baseload demand. At today’s 66x, the market is paying up for that growth, but the multiple still sits about 22% below the prior 85x extreme. If NLR were to revisit an 85x weighted P/E on unchanged earnings, that implies roughly 28% upside from the current multiple. The key judgment is whether looking at a trailing average makes sense in a structurally different regime. With uranium long-term contract prices repricing higher, data center demand inflecting and nuclear moving from “option” to “requirement” in energy policy, using the old 45x midpoint as a ceiling underestimates the new earnings trajectory. In other words, the valuation is rich versus history but still rational if you accept that forward earnings for the sector will compound significantly faster than in the pre-AI era.

AI, hyperscalers and why big tech power deals matter for NLR ETF

The recent Meta power agreements are a clear illustration of how the nuclear theme is migrating from narrative to contracted cash flow. Meta has inked deals with three U.S. nuclear generation companies to secure long-term electricity supply for AI data centers, with related projects expected to add around 6.6 gigawatts of capacity by 2035. In market terms, that announcement helped trigger double-digit percentage moves in certain suppliers: Vistra jumped about 10.5%, Oklo rose roughly 8%, and Constellation – already a repeat partner for both Meta and Microsoft – gained around 6% in a single session. While NLR ETF is not a pure-play on any single of these tickers, it directly holds names like Cameco, Constellation and Oklo, so it captures both the earnings impact of long-term power purchase agreements and the re-rating of equities as investors recognize nuclear’s role in AI infrastructure. When you combine that with government repositioning – the U.S. federal government now treating nuclear as critical infrastructure and moving to accelerate approvals and funding – you end up with a demand pipeline that is anchored by hyperscalers and policy, not just spot uranium prices.

Comparing NLR with URA, URNM and URNJ across concentration and risk

Against its peers, NLR ETF is the most balanced way to hold the uranium–nuclear thesis. URA owns about 52 holdings, but the concentration is far higher: its top three positions (Cameco, Oklo, Uranium Energy) total around 41.52%, and the top ten reach roughly 69.84% of assets. One stock – Cameco – alone represents more than 22% of URA, while Oklo adds another ~9%, which means a single adverse move in one or two names can drag the entire ETF regardless of what the rest of the sector does. URNM amplifies that effect: the top three positions are about 46.20% and the top ten 79.35%, making it a high-beta way to express a bull view on uranium miners specifically. URNJ goes even further out on the risk curve, focusing on junior miners, with the top three at 38.59%, top ten at 75.90%, and many constituents not yet profitable; its 0.80% expense ratio and $426 million AUM underline that you are in a niche, speculative corner of the theme. NLR, by comparison, carries 0.56% in expenses, $4.28 billion in AUM, less concentration and a blend of miners, utilities and industrials. That makes it better aligned with investors who want a structural nuclear–AI baseload allocation rather than a leveraged punt on the uranium spot price.

Yield, income profile and the role of NLR ETF in a 2026 portfolio

With NLR moving from the mid-$60s area over the last year to around $145, investors need to think in terms of role, not just chart. This is not primarily a high-yield income ETF; it is a thematic growth-plus-infrastructure play whose yield sits well below traditional utilities even after recent distributions. The fund’s attraction is the combination of potential price appreciation driven by earnings and multiple expansion, plus a modest dividend stream backed by regulated and contracted cash flows. Given its current one-year range of $64.44–$168.10, a pullback from the $145 zone toward the low-$130s–$120s would not break the structural story; it would simply reset the entry multiple inside a still-tight uranium and nuclear power market. For portfolios, NLR ETF fits best as a satellite position tied to AI, electrification and decarbonization, with sizing adjusted for its ~37% volatility profile rather than treated as a core defensive utility holding.

Risk matrix for NLR: AI adoption, supply response and nuclear execution

The bullish case for NLR ETF rests on three pillars that can all be challenged. First, AI adoption and data-center build-out could undershoot current expectations. If growth in AI workloads slows materially versus what is currently discounted, power demand growth flattens, and the urgency behind new nuclear PPAs and capacity additions eases. Second, the uranium supply response could surprise to the upside. New mines, restarts and secondary supply could tighten or even close the roughly 1.9-billion-pound supply gap projected through 2045. That would compress pricing power for miners and, over time, pressure margins for some of NLR’s upstream exposures. Third, nuclear project execution risk remains real. Regulatory delays, cost overruns and political reversals – particularly in Western markets – can push timelines out and suppress equity valuations, even when the long-term thesis is intact. The ETFs most exposed to these risks are the highly concentrated miner products; NLR, with its mix of utilities and diversified holdings, is better insulated but not immune. Investors holding NLR around $145 must be comfortable sitting through -20% to -30% swings if sentiment or cycle expectations get reset.

Buy, sell or hold on NYSEARCA:NLR around $145.21

Putting the pieces together – a current price near $145.21 versus a 52-week range of $64.44–$168.10, a portfolio P/E around 66x against a historical 45x average and 85x peak, a structurally tight uranium market with a projected >1.9-billion-pound deficit, accelerating AI-driven baseload demand, and diversified exposure across miners, utilities and nuclear tech – NLR ETF still skews positively on a risk–reward basis. Upside toward the prior valuation peak implies around 28% potential appreciation if earnings hold and the market is prepared to pay a premium multiple for nuclear and uranium during the core AI build-out years. The trade-off is elevated volatility and the possibility of a -20% to -30% drawdown if AI capex or uranium supply dynamics disappoint. On balance, with the ETF trading below its prior high of $168.10, backed by improving fundamentals and better risk distribution than URA, URNM or URNJ, I would categorize NYSEARCA:NLR as a Buy rather than a Hold or Sell at current levels, with the clear understanding that it is a high-beta thematic exposure, not a low-risk income utility fund.