ASEA vs. SIL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

ASEA (Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF) and SIL (Global X Silver Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ASEA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE/ASEAN 40 Index, while SIL is a Silver fund tracking the Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ASEA returned 7.65%/yr vs 8.22%/yr for SIL. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

ASEA vs. SIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA) and Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASEA achieves a 8.57% return, which is significantly higher than SIL's -9.52% return. Over the past 10 years, ASEA has underperformed SIL with an annualized return of 7.65%, while SIL has yielded a comparatively higher 8.22% annualized return.

ASEA

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: -0.10%
• YTD: 8.57%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 26.09%
• 3Y*: 14.86%
• 5Y*: 10.26%
• 10Y*: 7.65%

SIL

• 1D: -3.77%
• 1M: -14.23%
• YTD: -9.52%
• 6M: -12.87%
• 1Y: 62.10%
• 3Y*: 45.49%
• 5Y*: 13.12%
• 10Y*: 8.22%

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

ASEA vs. SIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	8.57%	19.80%	9.82%	4.88%	5.24%	4.66%	-7.88%	8.34%	-7.58%	35.06%
SIL Global X Silver Miners ETF	-9.52%	166.16%	14.62%	1.31%	-22.83%	-18.35%	40.30%	34.78%	-22.42%	1.67%

Correlation

The correlation between ASEA and SIL is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 17, 2011	0.36

ASEA vs. SIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASEA	SIL
Financial Services	11.3%	-
Industrials	6.3%	-
Communication Services	4.0%	-
Energy	3.2%	-
Real Estate	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	0.2%
Healthcare	1.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.9%	-
Basic Materials	0.5%	99.8%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

ASEA vs. SIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASEA

ASEA Risk / Return Rank: 62
ASEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
ASEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ASEA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ASEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
ASEA Martin Ratio Rank: 55

SIL

SIL Risk / Return Rank: 34
SIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
SIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
SIL Omega Ratio Rank: 35
SIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
SIL Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

ASEA vs. SIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA) and Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ASEA	SIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	1.18	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	1.63	+1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.22	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	1.68	+1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.48	4.22	+4.25

ASEA vs. SIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASEA Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is higher than the SIL Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASEA and SIL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ASEA vs. SIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASEA drawdown since its inception was -44.16%, smaller than the maximum SIL drawdown of -82.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASEA and SIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASEA	SIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.16%	-82.99%	+38.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.28%	-37.08%	+28.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.20%	-37.08%	+14.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.20%	-49.48%	+27.28%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.16%	-63.04%	+18.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.63%	-35.97%	+32.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.63%	-51.37%	+40.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	14.75%	-11.66%

Volatility

ASEA vs. SIL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA) is 4.56%, while Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) has a volatility of 19.73%. This indicates that ASEA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASEA	SIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.56%	19.73%	-15.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.64%	44.48%	-32.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.40%	52.74%	-38.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.73%	39.88%	-25.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.53%	39.91%	-22.38%

ASEA vs. SIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ASEA and SIL have an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Dividends

ASEA vs. SIL - Dividend Comparison

ASEA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.64%, more than SIL's 1.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	3.64%	3.95%	3.61%	3.76%	2.23%	4.19%	2.27%	2.51%	3.08%	1.59%	2.78%	3.64%
SIL Global X Silver Miners ETF	1.31%	1.18%	2.40%	0.59%	0.48%	1.59%	1.92%	1.53%	1.21%	0.02%	3.34%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASEA and SIL in my portfolio?

ASEA and SIL have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASEA or SIL?

SIL has higher volatility (19.73%) compared to ASEA (4.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASEA dropped -44.16% vs SIL's -82.99%.

Which ETF is better, ASEA or SIL?

On 10-year performance, SIL leads with 8.22% vs 7.65% for ASEA. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. On volatility, ASEA has been the lower-risk option at 4.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASEA or SIL?

Over the 10-year period, SIL has performed better with a 8.22% return vs 7.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASEA or SIL?

ASEA and SIL have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ASEA or SIL?

ASEA has the higher dividend yield at 3.64%, compared with 1.31% for SIL.

What is the main difference between ASEA and SIL?

ASEA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while SIL is Silver. ASEA tracks FTSE/ASEAN 40 Index, while SIL tracks Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASEA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.18), 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.