AFSC vs. SIVR
AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and SIVR (abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while SIVR is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price ($/ozt). AFSC is actively managed, while SIVR is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 27.01% vs 110.95% for SIVR. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for SIVR.
Performance
AFSC vs. SIVR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 16.58% return, which is significantly higher than SIVR's 2.85% return.
AFSC
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 1.96%
- YTD
- 16.58%
- 6M
- 13.48%
- 1Y
- 27.01%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SIVR
- 1D
- -2.62%
- 1M
- 0.42%
- YTD
- 2.85%
- 6M
- 24.90%
- 1Y
- 110.95%
- 3Y*
- 45.38%
- 5Y*
- 21.00%
- 10Y*
- 15.77%
AFSC vs. SIVR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF | 16.58% | 2.67% |
SIVR abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF | 2.85% | 115.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between AFSC and SIVR is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025 | 0.15 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
AFSC vs. SIVR — Risk / Return Rank
AFSC
SIVR
AFSC vs. SIVR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| AFSC | SIVR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.44 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.04 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.35 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.64 | 2.63 | +0.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.96 | 5.67 | +4.29 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AFSC | SIVR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.46 | 1.90 | -0.44 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.58 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.50 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.67 | 0.32 | +0.35 |
Drawdowns
AFSC vs. SIVR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.68%, smaller than the maximum SIVR drawdown of -75.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and SIVR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AFSC | SIVR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.68% | -75.85% | +54.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.29% | -42.42% | +32.13% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -42.42% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -42.42% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.42% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.79% | -37.25% | +35.46% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.15% | -47.85% | +43.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.72% | 19.64% | -16.92% |
Volatility
AFSC vs. SIVR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) is 5.49%, while abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) has a volatility of 16.28%. This indicates that AFSC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SIVR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AFSC | SIVR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.49% | 16.28% | -10.79% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.99% | 58.30% | -44.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.59% | 58.84% | -40.25% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.57% | 36.17% | -13.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.57% | 31.87% | -9.30% |
AFSC vs. SIVR - Expense Ratio Comparison
AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than SIVR's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
AFSC vs. SIVR - Dividend Comparison
AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, while SIVR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF | 0.07% | 0.08% |
SIVR abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AFSC and SIVR have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SIVR has higher volatility (16.28%) compared to AFSC (5.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.68% vs SIVR's -75.85%.
On 1-year performance, SIVR leads with 110.95% vs 27.01% for AFSC. On fees, SIVR is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, SIVR has performed better with a 110.95% return vs 27.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SIVR is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.
AFSC has the higher dividend yield at 0.07%, compared with 0.00% for SIVR.
AFSC is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while SIVR is Silver. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.30% for SIVR.
SIVR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 1.46), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for AFSC and SIVR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer