CEF vs. UNWPX

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

CEF (Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust) and UNWPX (U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund) are both mutual funds - CEF is a Gold fund actively managed by Sprott, while UNWPX is a Precious Metals fund managed by US Global. Over the past 10 years, CEF returned 10.54%/yr vs 1.72%/yr for UNWPX. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CEF charges 0.48%/yr vs 1.53%/yr for UNWPX.

Performance

CEF vs. UNWPX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) and U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund (UNWPX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEF achieves a -12.64% return, which is significantly lower than UNWPX's 2.31% return. Over the past 10 years, CEF has outperformed UNWPX with an annualized return of 10.54%, while UNWPX has yielded a comparatively lower 1.72% annualized return.

CEF

• 1D: -2.10%
• 1M: -3.19%
• 6M: -19.38%
• YTD: -12.64%
• 1Y: 30.45%
• 3Y*: 29.51%
• 5Y*: 16.50%
• 10Y*: 10.54%
• ALL TIME*: 5.76%

UNWPX

• 1D: 2.23%
• 1M: -3.68%
• 6M: -4.92%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 1Y: 69.58%
• 3Y*: 29.96%
• 5Y*: 4.55%
• 10Y*: 1.72%
• ALL TIME*: 9.19%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	$23.56M	$24.31M	$29.31M
UNWPX U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

CEF vs. UNWPX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	-12.64%	92.76%	24.07%	6.80%	1.07%	-8.32%	31.99%	16.91%	-6.34%	18.78%
UNWPX U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund	2.31%	136.32%	2.07%	-16.18%	-32.95%	-13.88%	70.83%	22.59%	-31.49%	-3.82%

Correlation

The correlation between CEF and UNWPX is 0.80, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 1990	0.57

Over the past year, CEF and UNWPX have become more correlated (0.80) than their long-term average of 0.57, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CEF vs. UNWPX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CEF

CEF Risk / Return Rank: 23
CEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
CEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
CEF Omega Ratio Rank: 30
CEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
CEF Martin Ratio Rank: 15

UNWPX

UNWPX Risk / Return Rank: 56
UNWPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
UNWPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
UNWPX Omega Ratio Rank: 54
UNWPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
UNWPX Martin Ratio Rank: 40

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CEF vs. UNWPX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) and U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund (UNWPX). 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.

	CEF	UNWPX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.82	1.49	-0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.20	1.98	-0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.26	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.97	2.36	-1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.07	5.76	-3.70

CEF vs. UNWPX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEF Sharpe Ratio is 0.82, which is lower than the UNWPX Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEF and UNWPX, 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

CEF vs. UNWPX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEF drawdown since its inception was -62.29%, smaller than the maximum UNWPX drawdown of -83.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEF and UNWPX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEF	UNWPX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.29%	-83.78%	+21.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.12%	-29.02%	-5.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.12%	-29.02%	-5.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.12%	-58.13%	+24.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.12%	-69.19%	+35.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-32.43%	-42.35%	+9.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.35%	-49.46%	+22.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.94%	11.84%	+4.10%

Volatility

CEF vs. UNWPX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) is 8.59%, while U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund (UNWPX) has a volatility of 12.12%. This indicates that CEF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UNWPX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEF	UNWPX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.59%	12.12%	-3.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.16%	38.48%	-3.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.14%	45.76%	-5.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.95%	32.10%	-7.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.06%	30.70%	-8.64%

CEF vs. UNWPX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than UNWPX's 1.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEF vs. UNWPX - Dividend Comparison

CEF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UNWPX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 87.75%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.08%	0.07%	0.09%	0.10%
UNWPX U.S. Global Investors World Precious Minerals Fund	87.75%	5.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	71.74%	6.76%	0.00%	17.45%	28.55%	0.33%	9.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEF and UNWPX in my portfolio?

CEF and UNWPX have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CEF or UNWPX?

UNWPX has higher volatility (12.12%) compared to CEF (8.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEF dropped -62.29% vs UNWPX's -83.78%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UNWPX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 0.82), 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.