Sustainable Bottom Line: 11 mutual funds and ETFs offer investors nuclear or uranium exposure but none of these funds may qualify as a sustainable investment.
Notes of Explanation: Funds are listed by category (refer to definitions). Total return performance to August 31, 2026. NA Not Applicable as fund has not been in operation for a full 12 months. # Actively managed fund. ^ Leveraged fund. Performance for Global X Uranium through April 30, 2018, reflects the performance of the Solactive Global Uranium Total Return Index and through July 31, 2018, the Solactive Uranium & Nuclear Components Transition TR Index. Thereafter the index tracks the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Sources: Morningstar for expense ratios, net assets and 1-year performance to August 31, 2026. Category framework is Sustainable Research and Analysis LLC.
Observations:
• In an article published last week by The New York Times, it was reported that California is considering extending the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s life and lifting a moratorium on new nuclear reactors. While this is by no means a done deal, the shift in California reflects a broader positive change in the public’s sentiment regarding nuclear energy. Nuclear has gone from a settled question to a live one, and largely a favorable one. Private sector demand and policy support have also shifted, with U.S. federal targets now calling for a four-fold increase in nuclear capacity by 2050. In fact, more than thirty governments have pledged to triple their production of nuclear energy.
• After roughly four decades of stagnation, the nuclear energy resurgence in interest and investment is being driven by AI- and data-center-fueled electricity demand, decarbonization imperatives, and renewed U.S. policy support targeting 400 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050. Yet the economics and sustainability profile of nuclear power remain hotly debated in capital markets: construction costs run into the tens of billions of dollars, timelines stretch over a decade, and financing structures are still being worked out. At the same time, smaller scale projects in the form of small modular nuclear technology, are in the early stages of development. Also, nuclear energy, while a clean energy source, remains controversial because of its environmental and social concerns and risks, in particular. The most prominent of these include the management of radioactive waste over very long-time horizons, severe accidents, impacts associated with uranium mining and the use of water resources for reactor cooling.
• Shifting sentiments have also stimulated investor interest in the sector, which, when viewed through the narrow prism of mutual funds and ETFs, has attracted some $14 billion in assets under management. As of August 31, 2026, 11 mutual funds and ETFs offer some form of nuclear or uranium exposure with passive (8 funds) and active (3 funds) management options. Seven of these 11 funds were launched in the last 30 months while one pre-2024 fund has undergone several investment mandate changes. Regardless of the shared theme, however, the group is more varied than the theme suggests, fees run from a low of 0.35% to a high of 1.30%, assets range from $1.4 million to $6.4 billion and performance over the last year to August 31(a) averaged 8.3% but has ranged from a low of -8.44% to a high of 17.4%. The range of returns, in part, reflects the varied mandates pursued by the funds which have been classified into five categories, as follows: (1) Uranium miners. At least 50% of revenue or assets tied to uranium mining. No nuclear utility or reactor-developer exposure. (2) Physical uranium. Economic exposure to the U3O8 price rather than to operating companies. (3) Uranium & nuclear components. Mining-dominant portfolios that also reach into the fuel cycle and reactor development, with minimal regulated utility weight. (4) Diversified nuclear ecosystem. Exposure spanning the full chain from mining through generation, with regulated utilities at roughly 29–38% of assets. (5) Nuclear build-out & technology. Equipment, engineering and construction, small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) developers and plant operators dominate; mining is the minority sleeve.
• Importantly for sustainable investors, none of these 11 funds qualify as a sustainable investment product. Not one fund is labeled, named or marketed as a sustainable fund. Not one fund describes itself as using a sustainable investing strategy, such as a values-based investing approach, negative/positive screening or exclusionary strategies, impact investing, thematic investing (while these funds are broadly classified as thematic funds, they do not take into account financially material ESG factors when considering an investment decision to buy, hold and sell a stock), ESG integration, shareholder advocacy, issuer engagement and proxy voting or structural sustainability. Relevant for the three actively managed funds, there is no evidence of a stewardship policy that addresses the topic of sustainability practices or outcomes. What these funds do reference are climate and clean energy language. In the absence of a labeled sustainable nuclear energy mutual fund or ETF or other investment vehicle, sustainable investors might wish to seek out an investment management firm that explicitly integrates ESG considerations as a matter of fiduciary practice that at the same time offers a separate investment account option or an actively managed fund once one becomes available.
(a) Intermediate-to-longer term performance results are limited. Only three funds have been in operation for three years operating under the same mandate and only two over five years.
