AIEQ vs. SILJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AIEQ (AI Powered Equity ETF) and SILJ (Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AIEQ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by ETFMG, while SILJ is a Silver fund tracking the Nasdaq Junior Silver Miners Index. AIEQ is actively managed, while SILJ is passively managed. Over the past year, AIEQ returned 22.77% vs 111.95% for SILJ. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AIEQ charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for SILJ.

Performance

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AI Powered Equity ETF (AIEQ) and Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AIEQ achieves a 10.58% return, which is significantly higher than SILJ's 6.61% return.

AIEQ

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 5.24%
• YTD: 10.58%
• 6M: 11.05%
• 1Y: 22.77%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SILJ

• 1D: -5.24%
• 1M: 2.57%
• YTD: 6.61%
• 6M: 16.40%
• 1Y: 111.95%
• 3Y*: 47.77%
• 5Y*: 13.13%
• 10Y*: 10.08%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AIEQ AI Powered Equity ETF	10.58%	13.96%	14.21%
SILJ Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF	6.61%	183.89%	16.02%

Correlation

The correlation between AIEQ and SILJ is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2024	0.36

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AIEQ	SILJ
Technology	35.7%	-
Financial Services	13.1%	0.3%
Communication Services	12.3%	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.5%	-
Industrials	8.3%	-
Healthcare	7.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.7%	0.2%
Energy	2.7%	-
Basic Materials	2.4%	99.8%
Real Estate	1.7%	-
Utilities	0.6%	-

Return for Risk

AIEQ vs. SILJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AIEQ

AIEQ Risk / Return Rank: 53
AIEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
AIEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
AIEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 53
AIEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
AIEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 55

SILJ

SILJ Risk / Return Rank: 54
SILJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
SILJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
SILJ Omega Ratio Rank: 51
SILJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
SILJ Martin Ratio Rank: 47

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AI Powered Equity ETF (AIEQ) and Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ). 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.

	AIEQ	SILJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	2.05	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	2.35	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	3.24	-0.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.72	7.99	+1.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AIEQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is comparable to the SILJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AIEQ and SILJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AIEQ	SILJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.86	2.05	-0.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.30	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	0.09	+0.78

Drawdowns

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AIEQ drawdown since its inception was -24.19%, smaller than the maximum SILJ drawdown of -79.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AIEQ and SILJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	AIEQ	SILJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.19%	-79.04%	+54.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.11%	-34.71%	+25.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.47%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-70.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.56%	-26.80%	+26.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.31%	-41.43%	+38.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.35%	14.06%	-11.71%

Volatility

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AI Powered Equity ETF (AIEQ) is 3.14%, while Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ) has a volatility of 18.69%. This indicates that AIEQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SILJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AIEQ	SILJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.14%	18.69%	-15.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.37%	45.24%	-35.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.34%	54.90%	-42.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.48%	44.35%	-24.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.48%	46.24%	-26.76%

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

AIEQ has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than SILJ's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

AIEQ vs. SILJ - Dividend Comparison

AIEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than SILJ's 1.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AIEQ AI Powered Equity ETF	0.39%	0.43%	0.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SILJ Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF	1.88%	2.00%	7.26%	0.01%	0.05%	0.36%	1.23%	1.45%	1.66%	0.00%	0.52%	2.46%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AIEQ and SILJ in my portfolio?

AIEQ and SILJ have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AIEQ or SILJ?

SILJ has higher volatility (18.69%) compared to AIEQ (3.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AIEQ dropped -24.19% vs SILJ's -79.04%.

Which ETF is better, AIEQ or SILJ?

On 1-year performance, SILJ leads with 111.95% vs 22.77% for AIEQ. On fees, SILJ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, AIEQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AIEQ or SILJ?

Over the 1-year period, SILJ has performed better with a 111.95% return vs 22.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AIEQ or SILJ?

SILJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for AIEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AIEQ or SILJ?

SILJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.88%, compared with 0.39% for AIEQ.

What is the main difference between AIEQ and SILJ?

AIEQ is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while SILJ is Silver. They also come from different issuers: ETFMG and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AIEQ and 0.69% for SILJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SILJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.86), 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.