ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ESGP.L (HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and SSLV.L (Invesco Physical Silver ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - ESGP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while SSLV.L is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESGP.L returned 33.25%/yr vs 41.83%/yr for SSLV.L. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ESGP.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for SSLV.L.

Performance

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) and Invesco Physical Silver ETC (SSLV.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ESGP.L is traded in GBp, while SSLV.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the SSLV.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESGP.L achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than SSLV.L's 2.83% return.

ESGP.L

• 1D: -1.22%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 5.94%
• 1Y: 64.08%
• 3Y*: 33.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SSLV.L

• 1D: -3.03%
• 1M: -2.34%
• YTD: 2.83%
• 6M: 24.38%
• 1Y: 113.97%
• 3Y*: 41.83%
• 5Y*: 22.50%
• 10Y*: 16.78%

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

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESGP.L HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF	1.59%	136.71%	3.17%	-0.39%	2.14%	-3.44%
SSLV.L Invesco Physical Silver ETC	2.83%	130.03%	23.22%	-5.88%	15.90%	-9.88%

Correlation

The correlation between ESGP.L and SSLV.L is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2021	0.71

The correlation between ESGP.L and SSLV.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESGP.L

ESGP.L Risk / Return Rank: 41
ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
ESGP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
ESGP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 40
ESGP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
ESGP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 37

SSLV.L

SSLV.L Risk / Return Rank: 52
SSLV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
SSLV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
SSLV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 57
SSLV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
SSLV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) and Invesco Physical Silver ETC (SSLV.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.

	ESGP.L	SSLV.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	2.04	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	2.37	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.36	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	2.93	-0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.62	6.45	-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.

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is comparable to the SSLV.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESGP.L and SSLV.L, 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

	ESGP.L	SSLV.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.56	2.04	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.56	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.16	+0.44

Drawdowns

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESGP.L drawdown since its inception was -36.54%, smaller than the maximum SSLV.L drawdown of -67.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGP.L and SSLV.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESGP.L	SSLV.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.54%	-67.74%	+31.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.67%	-38.71%	+10.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.67%	-38.71%	+10.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.71%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.79%	-33.92%	+9.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-43.04%	+29.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.38%	17.61%	-6.23%

Volatility

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) is 15.32%, while Invesco Physical Silver ETC (SSLV.L) has a volatility of 17.13%. This indicates that ESGP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SSLV.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESGP.L	SSLV.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.32%	17.13%	-1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.61%	52.96%	-20.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.84%	55.62%	-14.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.20%	33.89%	-0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.20%	30.07%	+3.13%

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESGP.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SSLV.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESGP.L vs. SSLV.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ESGP.L nor SSLV.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESGP.L and SSLV.L in my portfolio?

ESGP.L and SSLV.L have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ESGP.L or SSLV.L?

On fees, SSLV.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESGP.L or SSLV.L?

SSLV.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for ESGP.L.

What is the main difference between ESGP.L and SSLV.L?

ESGP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while SSLV.L is Silver. ESGP.L tracks EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while SSLV.L tracks LBMA Silver Price. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ESGP.L and 0.19% for SSLV.L.