AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L
AUCP.L (L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and SSLN.L (iShares Physical Silver ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - AUCP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the STOXX Global Gold Miners, while SSLN.L is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AUCP.L returned 16.41%/yr vs 16.71%/yr for SSLN.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AUCP.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for SSLN.L.
Performance
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AUCP.L achieves a -0.57% return, which is significantly lower than SSLN.L's 3.18% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with AUCP.L having a 16.41% annualized return and SSLN.L not far ahead at 16.71%.
AUCP.L
- 1D
- 0.71%
- 1M
- -0.45%
- YTD
- -0.57%
- 6M
- 4.66%
- 1Y
- 65.77%
- 3Y*
- 46.06%
- 5Y*
- 23.58%
- 10Y*
- 16.41%
SSLN.L
- 1D
- 0.48%
- 1M
- 1.18%
- YTD
- 3.18%
- 6M
- 28.32%
- 1Y
- 115.93%
- 3Y*
- 42.31%
- 5Y*
- 22.99%
- 10Y*
- 16.71%
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUCP.L L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF | -0.57% | 161.99% | 20.20% | 8.69% | -4.04% | -8.91% | 17.60% | 39.53% | -5.63% | 0.57% |
SSLN.L iShares Physical Silver ETC | 3.18% | 130.26% | 23.21% | -6.20% | 15.75% | -11.64% | 40.73% | 12.68% | -3.48% | -5.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between AUCP.L and SSLN.L is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2011 | 0.67 |
The correlation between AUCP.L and SSLN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L — Risk / Return Rank
AUCP.L
SSLN.L
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and iShares Physical Silver ETC (SSLN.L). 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.
| AUCP.L | SSLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.62 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.46 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.37 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.21 | 2.98 | -0.76 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.70 | 6.53 | -0.83 |
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
| AUCP.L | SSLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.49 | 2.11 | -0.62 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 | 0.70 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.47 | 0.57 | -0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.26 | 0.17 | +0.09 |
Drawdowns
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AUCP.L drawdown since its inception was -77.57%, which is greater than SSLN.L's maximum drawdown of -69.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUCP.L and SSLN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AUCP.L | SSLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -77.57% | -69.95% | -7.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.56% | -38.72% | +9.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -29.56% | -38.72% | +9.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -39.38% | -38.72% | -0.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.72% | -38.72% | -7.00% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.67% | -33.62% | +7.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -35.74% | -45.32% | +9.58% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.51% | 17.69% | -6.18% |
Volatility
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) is 13.97%, while iShares Physical Silver ETC (SSLN.L) has a volatility of 16.31%. This indicates that AUCP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SSLN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AUCP.L | SSLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.97% | 16.31% | -2.34% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 34.06% | 51.81% | -17.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 43.95% | 54.53% | -10.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.99% | 33.31% | +2.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.66% | 29.69% | +4.97% |
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
AUCP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than SSLN.L's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
AUCP.L vs. SSLN.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither AUCP.L nor SSLN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
AUCP.L and SSLN.L have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SSLN.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SSLN.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AUCP.L.
AUCP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while SSLN.L is Silver. AUCP.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners, while SSLN.L tracks LBMA Silver Price. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AUCP.L and 0.20% for SSLN.L.
Find the right allocation for AUCP.L and SSLN.L
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